I raised some issues in my comments on the first draft. You responded, but we could derive more benefit from the resulting inquiries had they been more inclusive. Your approach to the Google/Facebook duopoly is no more complex than to say that "if this goes on, there will be fewer choices and more power for the duopoly" or a facsimile thereof. Some actual discussion of the antitrust possibilities, along with other forms of legal response, might be fruitful.

Similarly, your account of ad-blockers and native advertising acknowledges that actual consumer defense tools beyond ad-blocking in the browser does not have to be so stupid, and can accomplish more for the user. But you don't investigate or say how. The definition of native advertising is still wrong, as I indicated in my comments.

Because the follow-up on these points can be strengthened, we can then make progress on the conclusion, which continues to see "advertising supported" and "economically viable" as synonymous. This implicit assumption dictates the circularity. Once the issue is how to fund creation without advertising, the re-framing disposes of the tautology.u