Are we pirates?

[Avocado Diaboli]

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

This is true, but it doesn't mean it has to be your own money. In my industry, we have programs such as MDA, Jumpstart, etc that gives us funding that is put towards marketing and advertising. We also get funding from our various partner vendors if we advertise our products with their logos. I can advertise our systems without spending a dime out of pocket, I just need to meet requirements to benefit from these programs.

This is entirely besides the point. Ads cost money and they're designed to bring in more money by convincing you to buy what they promote.

 

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

Not all ads are "direct-response advertising". Many of them spend their money (or others money) at a loss to improve brand awareness. I can assure you that for my company, this is explicitly accounted for and is expected. Nobody gets dinged for operating in the red for this specific service.

Brand awareness is just another word for revenue, if only delayed. Those non-profits mentioned are all in it for the money. Political parties usually beg for donations or otherwise ask for your vote for their candidate because that way they secure a position that grants them more money as an end result. Same thing for interest groups or religious organizations. The only example that's exempt are government agencies and here's where the term "public service announcement" becomes relevant, because an ad and a PSA are not the same. Ergo, the point of ads is to generate revenue. Q.E.D.

 

Never mind that most of the actual ads you see on YouTube are strictly direct-response advertising, so the distinction is moot anyway.

 

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

You are incorrectly oversimplifying the goal of advertising and marketing. Yes, we advertise to generate revenue, but it doesn't mean our adverts are designed to sell you a specific product. We want you to be aware of our brands and showing an ad, even if only for a few seconds, helps in that. 

So I'm actually concisely pointing to the heart of the matter but you don't like that while simultaneously admitting that I'm right. Got it.

 

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

No, it doesn't. Not buying a product you are aware of and never having heard of the product at all are two entirely different things. The first one is far more valuable than the second. If you know about my product but did not buy it, you are more likely to think of it or recommend my product/service to those that would be interested than if you never heard of it at all. This is why my point of not all advertisements are equal is fitting in this context...

It's still the same outcome: You haven't generated a sale. I just arbitrarily used this as the reason to equate the two. Just how in this whole debate "piracy vs. adblock" has been over the outcome being the same: Nobody is getting paid for their video. If you don't agree with my assessment, you also have to agree that the initial assessment was bollocks. This is incidentally why you don't respond to individual sentences of an entire argument, context gets lost in the process and you might not notice how something is intended to communicate more than what's written out with the words that comprise the sentence.

 

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

It doesn't bother me, though I question why you are bothered when people call you entitled for skipping ads. It's a pretty logical conclusion to jump to. You don't want to see something because you want to get to the content quicker because you feel entitled to what should or shouldn't be served to you, regardless of the impact on the platform hosts revenue. That is simply entitlement, the definition is cut & dry. Make no mistake, you are not owed access to a streaming service, it is a privilege. If you believe there is a negative connotation behind the word, that is entirely your problem.

For one, stop putting words into my mouth. I already explicitly wrote multiple times why I block ads. And none of those reasons included "getting to the content quicker". Also, regarding that argument about being owed access: Nobody is owed success and compensation either. If you're willing to offer something for free and in a way I can legally access for free, then I'll do that. I don't demand of you that you do (that would be entitlement), but if you do, you don't get to call me entitled. It's pertinent to mention that that definition you quoted, especially the way you chose to highlight the two vastly differing meanings doesn't really serve your argument here. I know what legal entitlement is. But to accuse someone of entitlement is to tell them that they're demanding something they're not entitled to, the word is used in a derogatory manner, not an objective one. And I don't demand anything from content creators. I mentioned multiple times already that I'm perfectly fine with anyone pulling their content from YouTube and locking it behind a paywall. I won't pay for it, but I also won't access it. I'll just do something else with my time. 

 

3 hours ago, MageTank said:

Also, all products are "advertised", good luck not spending any money on them, lol.

Not buying stuff that gets advertised is not the point, so don't pretend it is. I just don't want to see ads. Doesn't matter if I end up buying a product that gets advertised or not.

[MultiGamerClub]

Almost 8k views on this thread lol..

 

Pffffffffff

 

I agree with linus to an extent, but people taking his word out of context is just hilarious.

 

Saw the wan show when they discussed it.

[Areco777]

9 hours ago, joaopt said:

Sure not watching an ad on tv or parking on the middle of the road is literally exactly the same thing.

 

What's so hard for you to grasp, YT sends the video to my PC for free, its up to me to decide how i view it once it's on my PC, i'm not uploading it with my name or changing the content.

the uploading part on your name is related to copyright , i am saying youtube never send the content to your pc without the ad , it was you who used third party solution to block those ads , is it so hard for you to understand , i am just asking you people to agree that we are pirates and we are fine with it 

[Areco777]

9 hours ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Yes, it is. And yes it should be.

 

It's also up to you whether or not you recognize and understand the consequences of your actions, and intellectually reckon with the ethical implications.

 

I use ad-block, and I fully understand the consequences and have personally reckoned with the ethical implications.

 

That's all, and it really isn't much.

Yes , we all just need to agree the fact and understand it , no one is asking you to anything else than just to understand the impact , idk what so hard to understand in this for some peoples 

[thrasher_565]

i dont see people talk about data collecting and being sold to who ever for moeny. we dont no who collects it  so assume everyone dose. so we no you tube collects your data to then sell to say the advertisers to make money. also im guessing youtube get a bit of moeny per ad  viewed i would think. if it was not viewed they get noting and the advertiser also pays nothing.  the in video sponsers have nothing to do with youtube and probably pays nothing to them. then there the ad vs paid review of and item that alot of videos dont make it clear witch one it is.

 

on youtube its not likely to force you to make x amount of videos but i think you need a serten amount of views to be monetized and keep it above a serten amount to continued to be monetized.

 

another question is if i play the same vise more then once do they get more in ad revenue? or is it once? if so then we get duped having to watch more ads for something we already watched. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by thrasher_565

[Areco777]

8 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

i dont see people talk about data collecting and being sold to who ever for moeny. we dont no who collects it  so assume everyone dose. so we no you tube collects your data to then sell to say the advertisers to make money. also im guessing youtube get a bit of moeny per ad  viewed i would think. if it was not viewed they get noting and the advertiser also pays nothing.  the in video sponsers have nothing to do with youtube and probably pays nothing to them. then there the ad vs paid review of and item that alot of videos dont make it clear witch one it is.

 

on youtube its not likely to force you to make x amount of videos but i think you need a serten amount of views to be monetized and keep it above a serten amount to continued to be monetized.

 

another question is if i play the same vise more then once do they get more in ad revenue? or is it once? if so then we get duped having to watch more ads for something we already watched. 

well as far i know about adsense , the advertiser pays not much for views but in youtube if you watch a ad for 30seconds or click the link or something like that they will pay a nice amount  i think if you clicked twice they might pay but google has a 'fake' click system in which if google think its spam click on something like that the income will be deducted at the end of the month .

[joaopt]

11 hours ago, Areco777 said:

the uploading part on your name is related to copyright , i am saying youtube never send the content to your pc without the ad , it was you who used third party solution to block those ads , is it so hard for you to understand , i am just asking you people to agree that we are pirates and we are fine with it 

 

and i'm asking people to stop saying absurd things, so i'm a pirate because i decided not to watch a part of the content? do you realise how absurd that is?

[Moonzy]

36 minutes ago, joaopt said:

so i'm a pirate because i decided not to watch a part of the content? do you realise how absurd that is?

so you have issues because it's labelled as piracy?
then let's call it something else, but that doesnt negate the impacts adblocks have (which, imo, is the meat and potatoes of the discussion, not adblock =/= piracy), regardless

also, you can choose to not watch it, but outright refusing it to get served is not part of the "deal'"

my opinion:
adblock =/= piracy, because i dont wanna go to jail for adblocking (lmao)
but it does have almost similar impacts where im affecting the service that i consume
but ads nowadays are getting ridiculously annoying, so my adblock is pretty much turned on 24/7, but i won't tell myself "oh, it's their fault i turned it on", but rather "I'm not patient enough to deal with this"
I also am very stingy about paying for things I consume, so yea, i prefer to "watch" ads rather than paying, but in moderation

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

20 hours ago, joaopt said:

 

...You pirate stuff to not having to pay for them, stuff that has a price to be paid. You block ads on free content because reasons irrelevant...

Okay, so you categorically deny that the ads are the cost of the content, and you claim that the content is free. Let me reiterate that I also block ads just to make that clear. Below you will find a list of true statements about me, my choices, and my beliefs which I believe follow in logical order. With which do you disagree?

1. The content that I enjoy is not free for Youtube to host.
2. The content that I enjoy is not free to produce for the content creators.
3. Youtube deserves to be compensated for hosting the content that I enjoy.
4. The content creators that I enjoy deserve to be compensated for their work.
5. The content on Youtube is largely paid for by advertising.
6. The content creators that I enjoy are compensated for their work largely based on advertising.
7. By choosing to block ads, I am not participating in the system that serves to compensate Youtube for hosting the content.
8. By choosing to block ads, I am not participating in the system that serves to compensate creators for producing the content.
9. The content that I enjoy is not free, the implicit cost of the content I enjoy is the ads, because it is largely the ads that serve to compensate Youtube and creators.

It seems to me that believing some of these, but not all of these could only result in a state of cognitive dissonance.

 

Unfortunately for me, I think I just convinced myself that I should pay for Youtube premium... Damn it.

[Avocado Diaboli]

20 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Youtube deserves to be compensated for hosting the content that I enjoy.

So why don't content creators pay YouTube for the privilege of hosting those files? After all, if I want to have a website and not do the hosting myself, I also pay for that service. Why is the onus on me?

20 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

The content creators that I enjoy deserve to be compensated for their work.

Why do they deserve to be compensated? This is an unqualified assertion, possibly based on the misguided notion that any and all effort is always worth something and therefore owed proper compensation. Never mind that if it were even remotely true, why does YouTube have an arbitrary threshold of 1000 subscribers and 4000 watch hours in the previous 12 months to even be eligible to get paid? After all, you said it yourself: Content creators deserve payment. So if I manage to create a viral hit that generates tons of ad views but nobody subscribes to my channel, then I won't get paid. YouTube however did through the ads they run on my content.

[Mutta Bones]

gee mate, if you don't want to see those ads, however unbearable they are, get youtube premium. That's how you don't become a pirate. Yeah, for the average joe, an adblock is as easy it gets, plus free. But ain't that how piracy and the pirate bay works ?

What you say is true, if they were unremovable, wherein using adblock could be justified but it IS removable so your argument holds no water. At-least for youtubers.

Think of it, big journalist corps don't care about you, but your small 2.5k subs youtuber does. His life depends on that stuff. If you buy something from a street-side hawker for 10$, I assure you he got for less than 8$. But that don't mean he's cheating you.

I may have an obvious perspective here, as a creator myself, but what I'm saying isn't too much tho.

 

[Mutta Bones]

On 1/28/2022 at 10:18 PM, GorujoCY said:

Ironic Thing is that I have a dream where I wanna recreate the advertisement platform where Creators and Consumers alike get paid a certain percentage of the revenue then everyone wins, but making that I need to learn business skills, and dive more into coding not to mention potentially extensions and finding ways to intergrate that, maybe with USD Coin Cryptocurrency.

You idea sounds gold, but it has the biggest plot hole - advertisement.

I want potential customers to look at my ads, or those who didn't know they needed my product. That is why google collects so much user data, and is rightly blamed for mind you. I don't want to pay customers to see my ads. Heck in this method, I would be giving money to my customers, who in turn - give it to me back. youtube acts as a platform for ads, not to launder money. Only upside is that people would watch the full ad. and if you have no interest in buying the product, that cut could have been given to the creator. this means you are now basically stealing the creators money, or youtube's. And we all know who's cut of the share would come to you. Not like youtube gives two ounces of shit.

[MageTank]

15 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

This is entirely besides the point. Ads cost money and they're designed to bring in more money by convincing you to buy what they promote.

It's not "besides the point" at all. You stated that if money isn't coming in, there is no point for a company to run ads. By not having to pay for the ads out of pocket, it's literally a no-loss option to generate potential interest. If you can't see that point, you might be beyond explaining this to.

 

15 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Brand awareness is just another word for revenue, if only delayed. Those non-profits mentioned are all in it for the money. Political parties usually beg for donations or otherwise ask for your vote for their candidate because that way they secure a position that grants them more money as an end result. Same thing for interest groups or religious organizations. The only example that's exempt are government agencies and here's where the term "public service announcement" becomes relevant, because an ad and a PSA are not the same. Ergo, the point of ads is to generate revenue. Q.E.D.

 

Never mind that most of the actual ads you see on YouTube are strictly direct-response advertising, so the distinction is moot anyway.

Brand awareness isn't another word for revenue, you clearly have no idea what advertising is and are just grasping for straws here. Brand awareness can GENERATE revenue by helping associate your brand with a product, but calling brand awareness another word for revenue is silly. That's like calling graphics cards "another word for gaming" simply because people use GPU's for gaming. It's not the same thing, not even remotely close.

 

15 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

So I'm actually concisely pointing to the heart of the matter but you don't like that while simultaneously admitting that I'm right. Got it.

No, you're not concise at all. You are repeating your opinions as if they are facts without citing any sources. Even when presented with evidence, you refute it because you simply believe otherwise. Also, nice job ignoring the context of what you quoted and assuming it means you are right. You got this debate thing down to a science, lol.

 

15 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It's still the same outcome: You haven't generated a sale. I just arbitrarily used this as the reason to equate the two. Just how in this whole debate "piracy vs. adblock" has been over the outcome being the same: Nobody is getting paid for their video. If you don't agree with my assessment, you also have to agree that the initial assessment was bollocks. This is incidentally why you don't respond to individual sentences of an entire argument, context gets lost in the process and you might not notice how something is intended to communicate more than what's written out with the words that comprise the sentence.

What exactly haven't I responded to? I've done a pretty solid job tearing your argument down with basic fundamentals of advertising and word definition. You are stuck on this whole "ads must generate a sale in order to be successful" but even when faced with evidence to the contrary, you ignore that entirely because "they are still trying to make money, I know this because I believe it". 

15 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

For one, stop putting words into my mouth. I already explicitly wrote multiple times why I block ads. And none of those reasons included "getting to the content quicker". Also, regarding that argument about being owed access: Nobody is owed success and compensation either. If you're willing to offer something for free and in a way I can legally access for free, then I'll do that. I don't demand of you that you do (that would be entitlement), but if you do, you don't get to call me entitled. It's pertinent to mention that that definition you quoted, especially the way you chose to highlight the two vastly differing meanings doesn't really serve your argument here. I know what legal entitlement is. But to accuse someone of entitlement is to tell them that they're demanding something they're not entitled to, the word is used in a derogatory manner, not an objective one. And I don't demand anything from content creators. I mentioned multiple times already that I'm perfectly fine with anyone pulling their content from YouTube and locking it behind a paywall. I won't pay for it, but I also won't access it. I'll just do something else with my time.

My apologies, you got me there. You don't block ads because you want to get to content quicker, you are different from everyone else. You block ads because you refuse to be the product, refuse to have your data sold and be tracked through ads. You believe you are owed the choice of deciding who serves you an add or collects your data. If only there was a word for someone that believes they are owed something... Oh yeah... You feel entitled. Entitled to your privacy while connected to an external server. Again, if you believe it's a negative connotation, that's on you, but don't pretend that it isn't applicable simply because you don't like the word. Though the problem really stems from your lack of understanding regarding the word. You somehow think entitlement means you are entitled to something you don't deserve yet that isn't defined in ANY definition of the word. Let's try this again with your exact words, so I don't put words in your mouth this time. First, some definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement. 

Now, lets apply these to your words:

On 1/28/2022 at 1:11 PM, Avocado Diaboli said:

Except it isn't. I have no agreement with any single content creator. YouTube is an open platform that offers me content for free. It implements ads the same way every other website does. My dealings are with YouTube, not with any one content creator on the platform. And I choose to block YouTube's ads.

 

Honestly, this just seems like Linus once again put his foot in his mouth. Why alienate anyone who would be content to support your business if it meant offsetting ads and sponsor segments by encouraging buying merch as a better alternative? Yeah no, let's make a dumb comparison to a TV show that isn't offered on a free service to begin with that isn't paid for with ads. To pretend like there's an equivalence between a streaming service behind a paywall and blocking ads on YouTube is disingenuous at best.

 

 

Honestly, this pretty much ensures that I'll never whitelist your channel from either adblock or sponsorblock. And no, again, my payment for the content isn't ads. I get to watch it for free. Linus is paid by Google for the opportunity to show me ads. He's not paid by me watching the ads. This is such a hilariously wrongheaded way of framing this entire scenario. If a service is free for me to use, I'm the product being sold. That's the long and short of it. And I choose not to be sold. Hence why I block ads everywhere possible. If Linus isn't happy with that arrangement, he's more than welcome to take all his content off YouTube and put it behind his Floatplane paywall. If that's a sustainable business move for him, good for him. I won't mourn his disappearance from YouTube. Every YouTuber is replaceable and there are more than enough people ready to jump into his niche if he were to pack up and leave. But to call it piracy is wrong by every metric imaginable. Words mean things and you don't just get to redefine them to suit your whims. 

I've taken the liberty to bold the areas of entitlement in your post. Now lets apply some definitions!

• " belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges"
  • "And I choose to block YouTube's ads" - Implies you are inherently deserving of the choice in this matter, to be entitled to choose not to be served ads
  • "I get to watch it for free" - Pretty self explanatory. When watching YouTube without any third party extensions or tools to block ads, you get served ads. YouTube discloses that their biggest source of revenue comes from ads. You make the choice to circumvent ad delivery simply because you feel entitled to do so.
  • "If a service is free for me to use, I'm the product being sold. That's the long and short of it. And I choose not to be sold" - Implies you are entitled to the decision to circumvent "being a product" simply because you don't like it. Again, cut and dry by the quoted definition.

In summary, you are entitled, Avocado Diaboli, but it doesn't make me love you any less. Also, you are confusing the word "entitlement" with "sense of entitlement", which are two different things, one of which I haven't accused you of.

 

Also, you are right. Nobody is owed success or compensation. Luckily I never said that either, so we can agree on something. On an unrelated note, I am going to McDonalds to take all of the free ketchup packets since they are free and they don't explicitly say I can't have them without buying food. If they want to stop me, they'll have to make it cost something or block me from doing so. Once they do, I'll just go somewhere else...

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

14 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Why do they deserve to be compensated?

They deserve to be compensated because I enjoy them, and because I'm not an asshole.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

They deserve to be compensated because I enjoy them, and because I'm not an asshole.

You fell into his trap...

[Biohazard777]

16 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Unfortunately for me, I think I just convinced myself that I should pay for Youtube premium... Damn it.

Or you can continue blocking ads knowing that it hurts both YT and creators, then support the creators in some other way and just hurt YT.
If you want change you gotta do something about it, either don't watch YT (clear conscience) or block their ads (dirty "pirate", such poor choice of a word by Linus) until they walk back or at least tone down some of the poor decisions they've made over the last few years.
By paying YT premium you change nothing, heck you might just be incentivizing them to go full bonkers on their nonpremium ad watching viewers. Let's not pretend YT has to be this shitty to operate, there are other ad-supported video streaming services out there that aren't nearly as bad as YT when it comes to ads. Maybe YT needs to die / lose relevance, same as classic TV broadcasts without rewind and skip functionality... But what about the creators? Well they can jump ship or sink with it, their choice.

[Blademaster91]

18 minutes ago, Mutta Bones said:

gee mate, if you don't want to see those ads, however unbearable they are, get youtube premium. That's how you don't become a pirate. Yeah, for the average joe, an adblock is as easy it gets, plus free. But ain't that how piracy and the pirate bay works ?

What you say is true, if they were unremovable, wherein using adblock could be justified but it IS removable so your argument holds no water. At-least for youtubers.

Think of it, big journalist corps don't care about you, but your small 2.5k subs youtuber does. His life depends on that stuff. If you buy something from a street-side hawker for 10$, I assure you he got for less than 8$. But that don't mean he's cheating you.

I may have an obvious perspective here, as a creator myself, but what I'm saying isn't too much tho.

 

Except piracy is downloading a movie from pirate bay, you're taking copyrighted protected works in that case, blocking an ad on youtube is just blocking an ad, the video is completely free. If I close out a tab while an ad is playing, or walk away from the TV while an ad is playing, then the argument of adblocking= piracy means I'm pirating even without using an adblocker.

Or I can just use a ad blocker for free, Youtube doesn't even state how much of the Youtube premium profit goes to creators, so i'm not willing to hand over money to Google/ Youtube for something that is otherwise free.

And I've mentioned this before, but the issue with small youtubers is Google/Youtube doesn't promote them enough, smaller content creators shouldn't need to rely on ad revenue.

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

so you have issues because it's labelled as piracy?
then let's call it something else, but that doesnt negate the impacts adblocks have (which, imo, is the meat and potatoes of the discussion, not adblock =/= piracy), regardless

also, you can choose to not watch it, but outright refusing it to get served is not part of the "deal'"

my opinion:
adblock =/= piracy, because i dont wanna go to jail for adblocking (lmao)
but it does have almost similar impacts where im affecting the service that i consume
but ads nowadays are getting ridiculously annoying, so my adblock is pretty much turned on 24/7, but i won't tell myself "oh, it's their fault i turned it on", but rather "I'm not patient enough to deal with this"
I also am very stingy about paying for things I consume, so yea, i prefer to "watch" ads rather than paying, but in moderation

No people have issues because it's being mislabeled as piracy when it's objectively not.

If people want to call ad blocking piracy then closing a video while an ad is playing is piracy as well, and I understand the impacts just fine. However I have no issue using an adblocker because the ad companies have no morals or ethics as there have been cases of ads carrying malware.

And it is the fault of ad companies for people using ad blockers, when ads are so awful, or even potentially harmful malware, of course people are going to get tired of annoying and dangerous ads.

[Areco777]

2 hours ago, joaopt said:

 

and i'm asking people to stop saying absurd things, so i'm a pirate because i decided not to watch a part of the content? do you realise how absurd that is?

well you are a pirate because you just decided that the advert is not part of the youtube's whole system 

[Quackers101]

1 minute ago, Biohazard777 said:

Or you can continue blocking ads knowing that it hurts both YT and creators, then support the creators in some other way and just hurt YT.

By paying YT premium you change nothing, heck you might just be incentivizing them to go full bonkers on their nonpremium ad watching viewers.

yeah, which is becoming a difficult choice of youtube premium and with the previous drama it has gained. Also that youtube is owned by google, that doesn't make things better and the direction youtube might already be moving towards which might be less focus on new/current creators.

[tkitch]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except piracy is downloading a movie from pirate bay, you're taking copyrighted protected works in that case, blocking an ad on youtube is just blocking an ad, the video is completely free. If I close out a tab while an ad is playing, or walk away from the TV while an ad is playing, then the argument of adblocking= piracy means I'm pirating even without using an adblocker.

 

Super bad argument.

 

If you let the ad play and walk away?  The ad plays.  The creator gets paid.  

You adblock, the creator does NOT get paid.

 

Do you think Linus gives a flying fuck if you actually watch the ad while it plays or not?

[Areco777]

45 minutes ago, Hairless Monkey Boy said:

Okay, so you categorically deny that the ads are the cost of the content, and you claim that the content is free. Let me reiterate that I also block ads just to make that clear. Below you will find a list of true statements about me, my choices, and my beliefs which I believe follow in logical order. With which do you disagree?

1. The content that I enjoy is not free for Youtube to host.
2. The content that I enjoy is not free to produce for the content creators.
3. Youtube deserves to be compensated for hosting the content that I enjoy.
4. The content creators that I enjoy deserve to be compensated for their work.
5. The content on Youtube is largely paid for by advertising.
6. The content creators that I enjoy are compensated for their work largely based on advertising.
7. By choosing to block ads, I am not participating in the system that serves to compensate Youtube for hosting the content.
8. By choosing to block ads, I am not participating in the system that serves to compensate creators for producing the content.
9. The content that I enjoy is not free, the implicit cost of the content I enjoy is the ads, because it is largely the ads that serve to compensate Youtube and creators.

It seems to me that believing some of these, but not all of these could only result in a state of cognitive dissonance.

 

Unfortunately for me, I think I just convinced myself that I should pay for Youtube premium... Damn it.

Finally a smart person 

[Mutta Bones]

4 minutes ago, Biohazard777 said:

Or you can continue blocking ads knowing that it hurts both YT and creators, then support the creators in some other way and just hurt YT.

Now that my friend, is genius and I would do that just to get on youtube's nerves.

[Areco777]

Just now, tkitch said:

 

Super bad argument.

 

If you let the ad play and walk away?  The ad plays.  The creator gets paid.  

You adblock, the creator does NOT get paid.

 

Do you think Linus gives a flying fuck if you actually watch the ad while it plays or not?

linus's whole point is that people should know and consider the impact , in wan show he said something around this line "you need to consider the impact it makes , if you are fine at the end of the day that youtubed paid for the service you used for free and can go to sleep , its fine all you need to do is consider the impact . " (i ofc dont remember it word by word but the meaning was same)

[Blademaster91]

Just now, tkitch said:

 

Super bad argument.

 

If you let the ad play and walk away?  The ad plays.  The creator gets paid.  

You adblock, the creator does NOT get paid.

 

Do you think Linus gives a flying fuck if you actually watch the ad while it plays or not?

The ad is intended to be viewed to promoted a product, ideally people viewing the ad would buy the product, or else the ad company is just lighting money on fire.

And yes I realize Linus doesn't care, however their argument is hypocritical in the first place as theres quite a few LTT videos on how to block ads, and its a weird argument as ad revenue isn't much compared to how much LMG is making from merch and sponsorships.

[Hairless Monkey Boy]

1 minute ago, Biohazard777 said:

Or you can continue blocking ads knowing that it hurts both YT and creators, then support the creators in some other way and just hurt YT.

Yeah this is what I do now, but as I stated, I do believe that Youtube should be compensated for hosting. I can't pretend I don't believe that, or rationalize my behavior by blaming Youtube. There are plenty of things I hate about Youtube and how it operates, but at the end of the day, they still provide a service that I use and appreciate.