There is no "predicament". I simply believe that it is my right to block ads as much as it is Youtube right to not send me videos anymore.
At the end of the day, I'm issuing an API request to youtube servers and they are free to reply to me or block me. I'm also free to do whatever I want with the reply, which includes NOT displaying the ads.
This logic is a little bit of "They are free to remove self-checkout. But as long as they allow self checkout, I'll allow myself to skirt a few things around it."
I guess my question would be -- where do you draw the line? You seem to be implying that adblock is not ethical. YouTube is not the only site that relies on ad revenue to cover operation costs. And it's not just visual ads; one can argue that trackers are equally as important to maximizing profits for a site that relies on advertisement. Then, do you recommend browsing the internet without any adblock to honor this implied contract between user and website?
No, I recommend paying for services you use because the ad-model is pure cancer, and freeloading is unethical.
Most people in the ad-block camp want no ads and no subscriptions. But they are then wholly dependent on honest users to keep their choice services alive. There is this intense cognitive dissonance that prevents people from recognizing that.
Use ad-block, I can't stop you, but don't pat yourself on the back like you're the hero of the open internet waging some kind of war. Recognize that you're just dead weight making the situation even worse. Its either pay directly or pay through ad views. That's it.
My point is you can name-call adblock users as "freeloaders", "pirates", "entitled", but this idea has to be consistent and apply to adblock users on sites other than YouTube.
If you have adblock turned on, whether it's an extension or built into your browser, you are undoubtedly one of these freeloaders as well. The only "honest" users as you put it are those with ad and tracker blocking completely disabled when they browse the internet.
You cannot equate sending a request and them sending back a response to "stealing". There is nothing illegal in not displaying ad.
What is the next step? I should be forced to LOOK at it as well? If not it is "stealing" as indirectly the companies advertising are not getting what they pay for?
There is a cost associated with creating those bits (the content creators) and a cost associated with serving you those bits.
So how do you propose people compensate the creators and the servers for the cost they incurred?
Pay directly? Ok, there is a yt premium, or patreon, or nebula, or netflix, hulu, etc.
Pay with ad views? Well then just watch the ads on these services that have them.
Rely on others to pay for you? Not a sustainable model for obvious reasons.
Another method?
I will send you $50,000 if you can name another good monetization method. But you'd be an idiot to tell me since it since the solution would be worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars to the tech industry. But no one knows it since it's about the same as the question of free energy.
There you go: https://www.youtube.com/premium
"YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
reply