I have to admit to not fully understanding all the dynamics of trying to run a web site, that costs money to run, with content that costs money to obtain or produce; while getting enough money either in advertising or direct payments from the audience, or from whatever other sources may be available, to cover the costs involved in running such a web site and making enough profit to be worth doing so.
But it's clear to me that putting content behind a paywall has the most profound effect of limiting the audience, and it seems to me that that cannot be good. If they just let me through, and put up a page with reasonable advertising on it, then they can get whatever revenue is there to get for putting that advertising in front of me. If they put up a paywall, then, in order to get any revenue at all from me, they have the impossible task of convincing me that the content behind it is worth paying for, without letting me see the content first, so that I can judge whether it is worth paying for.
Like
Blues Man and
2aguy have stated, when I run into a paywall, I just turn back. It's not unthinkable that there might be content that I might want to see enough that if I hit a paywall, I'll pay to go through it,but that has never happened yet.
Same reaction when I hit one of those walls that won't let you go past with an ad-blocker enabled. AdBlock Plus, by default, comes configured to allow ads to be displayed that meet the
Acceptable Ads Standards. I think these standards are very reasonable, and am willing to allow ads that comply with them. If any media source is not willing to comply with these standards, then I sure as Hell am not going to let them send their noncompliant garbage to my browser. If they do comply with these standards then there is no reason for them to object to me having a blocker up that blocks stuff that doesn't comply.