Monetization has nothing to do with good or evil. Being part of the web has costs and this is a discussion of a way to cover or create more value than those costs.
It may be sad that advertising is the main means of monetization, but I still find google's ads to sometimes be helpful and rarely be annoying.
No, monetization is, like the rest of capitalism, intrinsically evil. As a counterpoint there are plenty (actually, significantly beyond the bounds of "plenty") of websites and tech companies that operate entirely without revenue. I think you'd find, in fact, that these collectives are the ones with real creativity and humanitarian interest. When you're beholden to investors, users become second-class citizens. Showing them advertisements or having board meetings to talk about how best to exploit them is very far from ethical.
How you monetize[1] has a lot to do with good and evil. Certainly the web has costs, but the honest and pro-free market thing to do is transparently make users pay those costs, not dishonestly tell them something is free and when in fact you are making them pay all the costs and much more[2].
Free markets only work in so far as consumers make informed purchase decisions, weighing benefits against costs. Advertising obfuscates and increases costs in the most insidious way.
--
[1] Does a baker speak of "monetizing" bread? No, because a baker uses a straightforward and honest business model: Make bread that people need or desire, price it right, and they will buy it. Yes, the baker is technically monetizing bread, water and yeast, but to actively think in those terms puts one into the mindset of "How do I unload this bread, water and yeast onto people and somehow get them to pay me?" which in turn makes it easy to slip on the addendum, "get them to pay me no matter the means."
