[frotaur]

I hate ads as much as the next guy, but this way of thinking feels the most unsustainable of them all. You said it yourself; the only reason you get to watch content ad-free is because other people are either watching ads, or paying for the content.

You justify with 'if you offer content for free, I'm not going to pay for it'. Agreed with microtransactions and stuff. But with youtube videos? The content is not actually offered for free. It precisely relies on ads to exist. So the content is offered with ads/with subscription (i.e. not free), and you are using an adblocker to bypass this. So you are just leeching out of the other users, and is not sustainable.

[sfn42]

Honestly I don't care. I wouldn't sit through a 30 second ad to earn a cent, and i definitely am not doing it so that someone else can earn a cent.

As long as I can use youtube for free with an ad blocker (and sponsorblock, amazing plugin) I will. If google doesn't like that they better figure out a solution. Not my problem.

[wkat4242]

I don't really care if their business model is sustainable. If they go under so be it, someone else will offer it. Whether it's some hobby bob or whatever. I thought the internet was a lot better when it wasn't run by mega corporations anyway.

The thing with ads is: it's not free money. We pay for it. All of us. It's part of the price when we buy goods and services.

If advertising wasn't possible, items would be cheaper and we would have more money to pay for content directly. Cutting out the whole advertising industry out of the content payment loop would save so much money.

And yeah people would still buy stuff they need because they need it. And stuff they didn't need? Well good then that they're not buying it. Saving natural resources and money.