Ads are by definition someone asking the world, "who wants what we can provide?" The value is often for the person asking, rather than the person listening. Most of the time, ads rarely match up the two parties well, and as a result, the company tries its damn hardest to put askers everywhere listeners are listening. The result making for a sub-par user experience.

Often times in a company's search for revenue, it forgets about the end-user, and justify unpleasant user experiences with "Well, we gotta make money somehow." One can say, "well, if you don't like it, then leave." When users have a first chance to do so, they will, and then who will you advertise to?

The exception are ads in search, where the person asking (advertiser) is really well matched with the person listening (searcher). Google used restraint when it came to ads. It could have completely blasted the end user with flashy banner ads which were typical when it first started. However, it looked out for basic user value and user experience first. It is possible to serve ads, and have a good user experience.

The OP never was against paying for a simplified YouTube. It's not against YouTube making money. But it is against losing sight of the basic value of watching videos. It's like if you once wrote control tower software, and added bells and whistles to the point where you're not able to land planes anymore.

Once again, it's advocate for the basic value for the end user. Sometimes, when adding all the new-fangled stuff, we might lose sight of the basic value. That's what he's getting at.