Following your argument above, if the content publishers don't like it they should stop publishing content rather than enforcing your particular idea of an implicit contract.
If not then your supposed liberalism is strongly biased against those who disprove of advertising.
Picking from the items you've mentioned:
drugs: if someone is putting substances in their own body, they don't need your permission and you don't have a say on what they can do with their body, they own it, its their property
next,
sex (say even prostitution): Two consenting adults having sex. What's your problem? Same as above, you should've no interest in what others are doing with their bodies. You don't own their bodies.
Human Trafficking: Forced human trafficking is bad. Everyone should buy protection/insurance against this from private businesses (security agencies). Voluntary trafficking is none of your business.
Banks: banks are over-regulated. Let them run like other businesses. Don't bail them out if they fail (not with tax dollars at least). Let them fail as other businesses do. Let better banks take the positions of the ones which can't serve customer interest
I would appreciate/welcome any arguments against what I said
Mentioning a single pro for each subject is naive. The arguments for and against each of those are less shallow than you make it appear. You completely ignore systematic detrimental effects on society.
