[schrectacular]

But by your logic, the viewer who let's the ads play but doesn't watch them is stealing from the advertiser. If no one watched the ads then the companies paying for them would stop paying and both YouTube and the creators no longer have income.

Why is ad-blocking stealing but leaving the room during ads not?

[jryle70]

They are not the same thing. TV ads are meant to be played with or without being watched. Show producers get paid either way, but if people don't watch their shows be ready for them to be pulled off the air. That's why Nielsen numbers are important.

YT producers don't get paid if no ads are playing. Really, if you don't want to see ads, then don't watch the content. If you really want it then get YT Premium. Simple as that. I find it immoral that you watch the content with ad blocker and then try to justify that is within your right. Sorry.

[schrectacular]

I wasn't talking about TV ads, I was talking about YouTube ads. And I understand that the creators only.get paid if the ads play. My question was whether the poster believed that there was also a moral obligation to stay in the room and watch the ads, and where that chain of obligation ends.

But thanks for answering, you made it clear that you believe putting eyeballs on the ads that play is the only moral path, which is what I was asking.

Do you also believe that if you REALLY like the content you also purchase one of the advertised items? Because again, if no one acts on the ads then the advertising will eventually stop.

[acer589]

Because the ad is delivered in one, and not in the other.

You're comparing two unlike things. The equivalent to leaving the room during TV ads would be leaving the room during YouTube ads (or changing windows/apps).

[schrectacular]

I am talking about not watching YouTube ads. Not comparing TV to YouTubre. As I asked another poster, is there also an obligation to buy the advertised product? After all, if no one acts on the ads the advertising will eventually stop.