Understandable, but um, if you didn't have those ads, you wouldn't have YouTube. Oh pay for it? Who's gonna pay to watch stupid videos online? Nobody.
Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly.
This is not necessarily a reason to block all ads. But if they would make the ads less obnoxious I'd be much more likely to not worry about blocking them.
If you could link me a video with an ad it would be awesome, I want to determine the cause.
Hacker News, Github, Dribbble ... I disagree
Although, maybe if it wasn't for centralized video repos, we could host them in some p2p fashion? Torrent has certainly become less popular since the advent of streaming. As an added benefit, such networks would be more resistant to censorship.
what a great way to get rid of all that junk!
>Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly.
And that's bad because?
I, for one, would be happy to. I'd honestly pay a monthly fee to watch Youtube. I don't use it only for cat videos, I also use it to find new music from artists I've never heard of, watch recordings of concerts I've been to just to relive the moments and so on.
If Youtube would let me pay to make those ads go away, I'd do so without thinking twice. In the absence of the said option, though, yes, I block their ads.
Yeah the internet would be better, because nobody but the people who can afford to pay for it would be on... You'd have to have a full time job just to pay the fees to your handful of favorite sites you visit.
If content is supposed to be available to paying and non-paying users, then maybe (in the case of youtube)the payout to content creators would be determined by the upvotes of the paying customers only.
However, I'm not given the choice, which just seems silly to me.
I come from a group of people who run some of the biggest video based sites online, yes people want to watch these stupid videos for free, hundreds of thousands of daily visitors... One guy I know pays $1500/mo just to give stupid 30 second clips to his visitors with nothing but a few ads on the site to support it. No ads? Say bye to these sites, because nobody is gonna work a full time job to give you 30 second cat videos with no compensation at all.
So, if 1 in 100 signed up for 5 USD/month access, youtube would still make more (gross) than on ads. 1 in 100 might of course be a far too optimistic conversion rate.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/googles-y...
They'd get a cut of the payment as profit and it would also "incentivize the content creators" (I feel dirty now.).