sure. and the principled way to not support them is to not consume their content. I will never understand how people rationalize this to themselves as if they're on the moral high ground here.
This is a fragile holier-than-thou argument to claim that you can go through the modern world without looking at a youtube video someone linked.
The claim of moral ground is made even less robust when they literally have a platform that attempts to track your every single move in order to monetize on targeted advertisement.
There are other business models to achieve the same profitability without privacy invasion, and I do pay for and favour those business models.
I will repeat it again targeted ads only benefit Google by selling the illusion of advertisement metrics to marketers. Neither users or content creators stand to benefit from targeted advertisement quite the contrary.
Targeted advertisement should be as illegal as robocalls.
This is my picture: you are presented two options to pay, through ads or through plain cash. you refuse both and yet still feel entitled to the content. what do you object to in this framing?
To be clear, in the context of this discussion I don't care how you feel about paying through ads. It is their right to lock their content behind those gates.
The claim of moral ground is made even less robust when they literally have a platform that attempts to track your every single move in order to monetize on targeted advertisement.
There are other business models to achieve the same profitability without privacy invasion, and I do pay for and favour those business models.
I will repeat it again targeted ads only benefit Google by selling the illusion of advertisement metrics to marketers. Neither users or content creators stand to benefit from targeted advertisement quite the contrary.
Targeted advertisement should be as illegal as robocalls.