[acdha]

You have me confused with someone else. I would also suggest that you consider whether Google would go to the trouble of developing an anti-ad blocker system if they weren’t seeing that become more popular.

I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads, so I can understand why people want companies to be able to use ads to pay for their costs since the alternative is a lot of content many people won’t see because it won’t be made.

[summerdown2]

> I don’t like ads, but I think the only ethical options are posting to avoid them (preferably direct to artists) or watching ads

I think that ethical position is weakened by the fact many ads are links to scams and unethical things. You aren't just supporting creators by watching adverts, you're also potentially exposing yourself to bad faith actors.

[acdha]

Yes, they’re scammy. That doesn’t mean you can use something without paying for it but it does, and should, mean you go elsewhere.

[summerdown2]

To be honest, my ethical calculation comes out the other way around.

If someone is playing honest with me in good faith, and they ask for a show of good faith back, I think reciprocity, good manners and ethics favour the idea that I should do so.

If someone asks me to play fair with them, and then tries to shaft me - then any consideration I might have had for their position goes out the window. I don’t feel the slightest need to play fair with them because they are a bad faith actor.

To be clear, this is purely an opinion about ads on YouTube and whether I have to sit in one of two ethical buckets, not advocating an anything goes position.

My opinion is that there’s a third ethical position, which is a bit like the classical solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: co-operate until the other person plays you false. After that, don’t consider them a friend, and there’s no ethical problem in refusing to cooperate with them.