Point of note, unless there is a secret perk of being an admin, outside of WC we only show a single first-party ad for stardock products, which (being from us) we can guarantee is safe (and costs us nothing to show).
It's virus-free? Wow. But how does a site VET the content being [oh god I almost said 'hijacked'] inserted without consent 'onto' the site - whether virus free or not?
You can make that argument when they start vetting ads from the major ad networks, or only use first-party ads. Since they don't (won't) do it now, the fact that they can't when a user is using a browser they got specifically for that purpose isn't much of an argument.
Realistically, 'pay to remove ads' is not a good business model. People can get that for free, and so long as 1) their security is at risk because businesses refuse to take responsibility and 2) business are using public or consumer-paid resources to deliver said advertising, then consumers are under no obligation to receive those ads.
Successful models involve selling something that people can't get elsewhere, or doing it more conveniently. For example a TV streaming site that releases episodes to non-subscribers on a one-week delay, but simulcasts for subscribers.
To the topic, free ad-supported newspapers are already a dying model. Most of those primarily republish stories from AP and such, and aren't actually doing much if anything that anyone would pay for. Others who do produce a lot of new content are putting up paywalls rather than ads; they didn't survive for decades or more already by giving their content away for free after all.