>They typically have no say or control over the ad network
It's a free market. They have full control over their choice of ad network.
In fact they are the ones who have the longest lever for forcing change in ad networks. If everyone goes to an ad network that serves non-tracking, non-distracting, non-scamming ads that don't deliver malware, then only ad networks that deliver that survive.
And there are so many ad networks out there that don't do tracking and have revenues high enough to keep a website afloat. I can think of exactly zero that fit that bill.
Then maybe ad networks aren't the solution. Maybe it's Flatr or a browser like Brave that automatically pays websites you visit a few cents worth of Bitcoin. The current solution of creepy privacy-violating ad networks must go, and alternatives won't develop organically until there is pressure on publishers to find alternatives.
Flattr failed and is relaunching as a content-backing site for journalists. Brave requires a whole new browser with no extensions support and no online sync and doesn't support actual fees or payments, it's an optional distributed tip jar.
You want to put pressure on publishers? Refuse to visit their site if you don't like the ads.
It's a free market. They have full control over their choice of ad network.
In fact they are the ones who have the longest lever for forcing change in ad networks. If everyone goes to an ad network that serves non-tracking, non-distracting, non-scamming ads that don't deliver malware, then only ad networks that deliver that survive.