[kingrazor]

This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ads or paying for premium, I wouldn't watch it at all. So, the creator gets no money either way. Same thing when I pirate software or a movie or a game. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the amount of money the creator gets is the same, zero.

[pb7]

So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.

[kingrazor]

Alphabet has plenty of money. So long as I'm capable of watching Youtube for free with adblock on, I will continue to do so and feel no guilt.

[CydeWeys]

And this is exactly why YouTube should block ad blockers, to force people like you to be honest.

[kingrazor]

I fail to see how I'm being dishonest. It's not like I'm lying about how I use it.

[CydeWeys]

Today you get to learn that words can have multiple definitions!

[mike741]

That kinda sounds like lying.

[judge2020]

And thus YouTube is experimenting with an ad-blocker detection mechanism.

[xigoi]

I'd gladly watch the content somewhere else if Google wasn't holding a monopoly over it.

[acdha]

Good news, they aren’t. Tons of content is on multiple services - if you really have a principled objection to Google, you should show that by supporting those services rather than boosting YouTube’s popularity.

[mike741]

"Tons of content on multiple services" =/= "Tons of alternative services"

There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Youtube holds a monopoly.

[naikrovek]

yep. there's a word for a creature that consumes without contributing anything back, making things harder for everyone else: "parasite."