Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription. Or use a different platform that doesn't serve ads. Or sign up for some other subscription service. Whatever.
Do people also get mad at barbers that don't give free haircuts?
If they had one based on a scale of how many videos you watch, I'd be much more keen. Of course, I expect they wouldn't do that for multiple reasons.
I once had a website that would have been profitable if not for ad blockers, so I definitely get it. I don't know what the real solution is. Ideally they could block ad blockers and then keep the number of ads under control, but I doubt they'd actually reduce the numbers if they did manage to stop ad blockers.
For your actual numbers, 5 cents would be fine. I don't think I'd go for 25 cents.
I have never watched a show on TV stop for 3 minutes to tell me why I should be using NordVPN with their code to SAVE TODAY!
Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVcRMh3T_rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcDJmioWng
I cannot ignore an individual talking about NordVPN for 3 minutes.
>To those men in their oddly similar dark suits, their cold eyes weighing and dismissing everything, the people of this valley were a foe to be defeated. As he thought of it, Dasein realized all customers were "The Enemy" to these men. Davidson and his kind were pitted against each other, yes, competitive, but among themselves they betrayed that they were pitted more against the masses who existed beyond that inner ring of knowledgeable financial operation.
>The alignment was apparent in everything they did, in their words as well as their actions. They spoke of "package grab level" and "container flash time" -- of "puff limit" and "acceptance threshold." It was an "in" language of militarylike maneuvering and combat. They knew which height on a shelf was most apt to make a customer grab an item. They knew the "flash time" -- the shelf width needed for certain containers. They knew how much empty air could be "puffed" into a package to make it appear a greater bargain. they knew how much price and package manipulation the customer would accept without jarring him into a "rejection pattern."
>And we're their spies, Dasein thought. the psychiatrists and psychologists - all the "social scientists" we're the espionage arm.
The Santaroga Barrier,
Frank Herbert, 1968
This means that people who watched Youtube for up to 18 years with ad blockers are now forced to decide whether they want to pay money, watch ads, or stop using the service.
None of those choices is better, except possibly morally, than the now-unavailable but previously-very-available choice of getting Youtube for free with no ads.
If Google showed text ads for a few seconds before every search and used technical means to prevent people from bypassing that process, there would be a similar outcry -- even though everybody knows that it costs Google money to provide search results.
you have a bunch of barbers in a city, well, i open up a business where i cut hair. BUT I do a shitty job, so you kinda need to come back maybe 3 times for a decent haircut. Wow it sucks. Yeah. BUT...
I also put in a giant screen with ads, and an advertiser that counts people watching the ads. And then I say... ITS FREE.
Woah okay. At first not much happens, but eventually the other barbers start to lose money, thats because they can't compete with my free haircut business. I quickly expand and now have shops all over town, and competition is dying.
Now some people realized they can take a quick nap while getting a haircut so they don't see the ads. And suddenly I kick out anyone who takes a nap. Those people can no longer get haircuts because everyone else closed down because they couldn't compete with my free. And as those people complain everyone says "EVERYONE WANTS A FREE HAIRCUT BUT NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR IT!"
Edit: I also start selling packages of 20 ad-free haircuts a month. Most people think this package is a bit insane given that they don't get 20 haircuts in a month. Or every month. And they still have to listen to the barber push their "cancer cures" and other nonsense they keep pushing every time they get a haircut.
This is the reaction I am seeing.
It is completely lost on them that maybe the reason there is no competition is because nobody wants to watch ads or pay for premium.
The barber stopped giving free haircuts and now people are pissed that nobody wants to open up a "competing" free-haircut barber shop.
But I cannot and refuse to pay Google, especially youtube given their stance on censorship.
Then it went bankrupt because what everyone actually wants above all else is a totally cost-free/ad-free platform.
As for a lot of things there is a big network effect at play here.
But how can you expect creators to move to a platform that cannot provide compensation?
And I understand the other side of this. It is fair game for youtube to try to insert ads one way or another and make it as difficult as possible for me to remove them.
And about supporting creators: Yes, that needs to be done. I give directly to creators through patreon or other. Youtube is a middleman that provides very little value.
There you go: https://www.youtube.com/premium
"YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
And I'm also paying 5* that monthly subscription costs to creators I support.
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.
Strictly speaking, yes. Colloquially speaking, no.
But would youtube have a markedly higher revenue if no ads were blocked, even if some percentage fewer videos were viewed?
The business model youtube works with is clear:
+Ad-view income - operational cost - creator payout = income.
So what is it called when the user uses the backdoor to input $0 as "ad-view" income?
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.
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.
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?
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.
All I know is I'm keeping my eyes open for their next swing at remote attestation. If you follow the money, it's a logical step.
Ideally the offline/background play/queuing should be included because they're unrelated to the cost of serving video, but any other features like music/4K/etc should be an extra purchase. However, I strongly doubt enough people would even bother with those to justify having as separate features.
Live by the sword et c. et c.
Why is YouTube Premium $14/m? I find it hard to back into the economics based on either comparisons with Netflix, Hulu, etc or based on the amount YouTube have to pay creators per viewer per month for a typical amount of engagement.
Exactly: Nobody's entitled to my information without paying me. I use adblockers to keep out the freeloaders.
Subscribing doesn't stop them from collecting information or showing me ads. Quite the opposite.
Such a tiny fraction of subscription and ad revenue goes to creators.
> Who's paying Google for delivering that content?
ISPs who have peering agreements with Google.
Premium views pay substantially more than ad views, both pay infinitely more than ad-block views ($0).
Why should I pay 10 times more what Google gets if I was watching ads? Where's the logic in all all of that?
Doing it democratically would mean that instead of privileging addiction and watch time, we might include other metrics that relate to educational value or public interest and would prevent censorship due to the 1st amendment being directly applicable.
The government is a site of democratic struggle. The corporate world is a group of allied dictatorships.