How are they user hostile? It's people who do not want to pay for the service and do not want to watch ads to use the service who are the problem. How else should Youtube make money from those users? They must literally lose money on those users.
Not really sure how you expect content creators to be paid at all for what they produce, then.
What makes you think I watch content creators who are into this for the money?
Both sides of this argument are laden with assumptions. It’s a more opinion-based discussion than most. It’s a philosophical wormhole with no clear answer.
(Not saying I agree with this.) It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion that using an ad blocker is morally wrong.
This philosophy stack exchange does a good job of breaking down the argument in the context of music: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-im...
For example, YouTube could increase the price of advertising on their platform to make up for the fact that a certain fraction of users never see the ads, thus keeping everyone who matters happy.
When I used to watch broadcast television I used to do the utmost to avoid the ads by muting during ad break. However, on the occasions that an ad would actively interfere with my watching experience, such as an animation on the channel logo, or a sudden ad break with an ad premeditatedly designed to catch you by surprise (often by "sponsors") I made an explicit decision to boycott said product if I had an opportunity. There are brands that I stopped buying because of these things.
People who react with antipathy to ads have been removed, increasing the value of the brand messaging by negating brand damage in large-scale ad campaigns.
2. That's just making the experience worse for the people who do watch ads. Imagine it's a restaurant and you're raising the price so half the people can eat for free (this way everybody stays happy).
> How else should Youtube make money from those users? They must literally lose money on those users.
Cry me a river.
And why are you assuming that YouTube should make money at all? It is YouTube'job to find a business model that works without coercing users. If users don't want to pay (money or attention) then YouTube is not offering anything worth paying. And it's their fault, not the users'
I imagine most things that people pay money for they'd prefer to get for free, but that's not an actual option on the table.
YouTube provides a service you can either pay for with money or attention, and sure if people don't think it's a worth while expenditure of either then by all means they shouldn't watch it.
Why are you assuming YouTube should provide their service for no compensation?
That's for you to decide, and if you (and the other tens of people that think the same) end up leaving the platform that would reduce YouTube's costs, which makes sense for them.
Your argument is basically the same people use for piracy. If you don't want to pay for Photoshop, don't use it. If you don't want to pay for YouTube, don't.
Both outcomes of "pay and we'll give you access" and "I won't pay and I won't get access" are reasonable outcomes in a free society.