Any websites that prefer it could still be free then, but the costs to host them would have to be paid by their owner (like most personal or business websites today), not sponsored by ads.
Especially in the year 2023 where technology and internet access is so crucial to survival, I’d prefer for a low-income family to not have to choose between a meal and renewing their monthly email subscription.
Yes things cost money. Why should the poor be subsidised in viewing a website when they arent buying the expensive products being advertised on it?
That's probably less than you pay more for your phone for more traffic and power to display ads.
More interestingly, where does all the money for ads (this for Google and the service showing ads) come from? It's paid by all consumers already.
No, I'm speaking from the position of someone who believes we should use fewer (or even no) services, be it Gmail, or Figma or Spotify free tier, or whatever.
There's always FOSS software. There's also freemium (no ads, just reduced functionality to lure someone to the premium full-featured version), and of course freeware.
Ad-supported also has a cost: the ad-induced consumerist spending is one of the biggest expenses people make (disproportionaly so for poorer people). And there's also the jacking up of product costs to cover an ad budget. Plus the social cost in multitude of ways (from the advertisers having influence over the service provider, to personal data being harvested and sold).
Not if it was made illegal to show ads on paid services.
Passing such legislation would be rather redundant at that point, wouldn't it?