> gives poor people access to lots of shit that they otherwise wouldn’t have
Addiction is a precursor to poverty. If we accept the domino theory of "online advertising -> addictive design" then the fundamental evil becomes clear. Holding people in poverty in order to profit from their time and attention.
Most of the people I know with money are difficult to convince to spend it. e.g. rich people don't buy designer bags; poor people do. My wife makes all of our food; we do delivery or go out to eat maybe once every year or two. We have no recurring subscriptions (other than utilities). Our phone bill is $20 for both of us. etc.
We also live in an area where outdoor ads are banned (which tends to be the case in wealthy areas IME), and I block ads on our computers, so we rarely encounter them. Consumerism is gauche.
I think that's debatable, there's arguments like quantity over quality to be made, but I also think it's somewhat beside the point of "ad supported services are a favour to the poor."
Which is why a lot of things are moving to "pay w/ ads". Not only do you get paid twice, your ad space is more valuable because you've weeded out the people who can't pay.
Addiction is a precursor to poverty. If we accept the domino theory of "online advertising -> addictive design" then the fundamental evil becomes clear. Holding people in poverty in order to profit from their time and attention.