But at the same time and like the article, you also failed to frame the problem properly, see, it starts by telling us about a website serving 2 millions page views then goes about people wanting content for free.
Content doesn't cost anything once put online, so it's not about content but rather that it is accessed 2 millions times a month which generates traffic, which has a cost.
Now if it cost the same for the content to be accessed 10 or 10 millions times, then the justification/needs for ads would go away (except for newspapers' websites maybe). The problem is in fact dual, one is that the internet is designed to work as dumb pipes connected intelligence located in the network periphery not as centralized servers hosting content and the owner of the inner tubes ask money based on how much traffic goes through them.
The obvious solution of distributing the content in a p2p model which would move the bill of traffic from the content provider to the content receivers.
So yes adblockers are a problem because they're and additional layer of attempting to fix another problem ads and associated surveillance which is trying to fix the issue of relying on a centralized model on a network not thought for this usage imposed by a few giant companies exploiting their ownership of the architecture for profit, making a mess of layers attempting to fix each other but really attempting more problems requiring more fixing.