[Decabytes]

Seriously. I don't get why people expect that they should pay nothing to watch their favorite content creators. Sure you bought an LTT water bottle, but make no mistake Google is a business, YouTube is a business and they are not providing these videos out of the goodness of their heart. If YouTube ever doesn't make sense (algorithmically, financially, or through whatever metric Google decides is important) Google will cut it.

[lentil_soup]

I don't think people expect anything for free but I don't want to pay with getting bombarded with ads. If their business model is not viable then they have to find a new one. Just as we can't expect content for free they can't expect me to sit there and look at adverts out of the goodness of my heart. If at all possible, I will find a way to block ads out of my mind as much as I can.

[jsymolon]

Cable TV Promises.

Buy our service and get no ads. 5-ish years later, just like OTA.

NY Times ('81) https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/26/arts/will-cable-tv-be-inv...

Satellite radio, mostly no ads. Tune to the "laugh" channels ... tons of ads.

[afiori]

Personally I don't feel a moral dilemma about not giving revenue to YouTube.

That said, if Person A buys an LTT water bottle and block all ads and Person B watches all ads and never buys anything, then Person B needs to watch thousands of ads to make up the same revenue from that single merchandise purchase.

I agree with Linus that skipping ads is piracy, but if you finance it in better ways should you care?

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUxOnoWsFU

[esyir]

That was basically his stance. It's piracy, and I see no issues with it.

I'm not sure why people got absolutely butthurt about that.

[afiori]

Linus point has a slightly different nuance: adblocking is theft. Similarly to how Taylor Swift was against Spotify because (IIRC) people should buy albums.

My version was that adblocking damages revenue in very quantifiable ways* and you can work around that.

* I am almost sure that YouTube's recommendation algorithm does not counts watched ads as a metric, that is maybe watching ads increases the total watch-time of the video but otherwise an ad-full view is counted the same as a ad-free view. But this belief is not based on anything.

If this happened to be wrong then an adblocker could exponentially hurt a channel growth and that might equal quite a few water bottles.

[BeFlatXIII]

Oh no, YouTube shuts down and we all have to go outside and read a book. Realistically, enough people will remain ignorant of ad blocking hygiene that YT will remain relevant to the big G for the foreseeable future. "What if everyone made the same choice?" We already know they don't.

[krapp]

People have been able to tune out of, skip or ignore advertising on every media platform since the beginning of time. There is no obligation, anywhere, on the part of the consumer to engage with advertising in exchange for content.

[Chris2048]

> I don't get why people expect that they should pay nothing to watch their favourite content creators

Because they where offered up for free? And only now are charging?