Yes, a number of ad-supported sites are designed to empower the user. Video streaming platforms, for example, give me nearly unlimited freedom to watch what I want when I want. When I was growing up, TV executives picked a small set of videos to make available at 10 am, and if I didn’t want to watch one of those videos I didn’t get to watch anything. It’s not even a tradeoff, TV shows had more frequent and more annoying ads.
But note that I, as the user, want to block the ads. If I can easily do so (and I usually can) it’s fine. But the moment I can’t, in that very small way, I am disempowered.
And that’s usually where the junk shows up: in what way is the software not as good as it could be both because it needs to show ads and because it wants it to be hard to disable them (the second is worse).
The thesis is that jank is not quite imperfect software (it will never be perfect!) but rather something which is clearly not at a local minimum, and it’s pretty hard to have a local minimum with ads (even if the global ecosystem requires them for sustainability; something something evolutionarily stable something something always defect).
On a secondary point, when ads are locally optimal, we call it an effective sponsorship. Especially interesting when you don’t know that it’s an ad. How many times have you paid to see something with an agenda? Note that’s not a bad thing; I’d say every decent work of art needs at least some agenda. But it’s interesting because ads generally are not, in this sense, art; though on the flip side I’ve seen sponsorships on YouTube which are genuinely as if not more entertaining than the video itself and are still clearly sponsored and hence not deceptive.
But they'd prefer if it was shorts.
But it's fundamentally a correlation, and this observation is important because something can be completely ad-free and yet disempowering and hence unpleasant to use; it's just that vice-versa is rare.