"The argument about us not paying for the content we read... we didn't buy anything, so why would we pay for it - in any way?"
Yes, you did "buy", or rather, consume content and/or service. So you should pay for it.
"It's a companies choice to use the web - no-one is forcing them. If they believe that ads are the only way they're going to make money... then perhaps they should start charging a subscription fee."
And would you be ready to pay let's say even just $5/month for every site you visit? How much would be that for a month for you? Just check you browser history - how many sites have you visited in the last week alone? How much would have that cost you if you'd have had to subscribe on every single of them? What a nuisance would it have been to subscribe to every one of them? Would you have been glad to provide every single of them with your credit card details to charge you for their subscription?
I'm keenly awaiting your answer on these questions. If most of them are not positive, then it's obvious, that a subscription model can't ever even just closely replace the ad supported model.
"Calling visitors freeloaders is not really the way forward."
Well, the first step to every solution is to recognize and name the problem. So calling freeloaders "freeloaders" is the first step to solve the problem cause by them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
