No, you have to pay for it. It's not charity and you are not entitled. You can choose to not watch ads but don't cope by pretending to be moral or ethical about it.
No, I don't.
> It's not charity and you are not entitled.
You're right. I'm not entitled to it. They give them away for free. I'm taking advantage of that. They've been doing it a long time. I'll keep watching them until they're not offered anymore.
At no point have I been obligated to watch their ads. I didn't strike some deal with them where I promised to watch their ads in exchange for videos. I'm simply accepting their free videos. You don't get to invent obligations in other people that they never agreed to.
What rule do you think there is that requires me to watch youtube ads? By what mechanism do you think I'm beholden to that rule? Is it a real rule that I have to abide by for some reason, or more like a feeling you have about the way things should be?
I am genuinely curious where you think my obligation to watch ads comes from.
No, they don't. Not beyond what's explicitly in the license.
It may be in their interest to invest in open source software they use. Or they may simply want to do it, even if it's not in their interest. But they have no obligation to do so. If they did, it would be in the license, and as a result that license would not be open source. To say that users of open source software are obligated to contribute is an attack on the idea of open source.
The reason I license my software the way I do is so that users are not required to do anything to see it or use it. That's the whole point. I'm giving it away, like youtube does their videos.
They aren't entitled to our attention either. We're not gonna watch ads and there's nothing they can do about it. Either they give up the mass appeal of free content and start charging money for access or they deal with it.