4 ms·

Admirable sentiment, but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's wh

Admirable sentiment, but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. As far as I know, most people who make money from Youtube videos do not have a contract with Youtube. There are plenty of stories of Youtube changes that strongly impact the monetization - most recently: [1]. I believe it's better to support content creators themselves (e.g., directly, or via a Patreon or something similar) than indirectly-no-strings-attached-I-hope-having-my-privacy-violated-gets-you-some-something. Furthermore: the way advertisements work has become so nefarious, that basically your browser is sleeping around with 30-50 random unknown third parties on just about every site you visit. And browser STDs are rampant across the web. Browse safely, use a browser condom, i.e., an ad blocker. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20849752/youtube-creators-ftc-fine-settlement-family-friendly-content-gaming-minecraft-roblox https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20849752/youtube-creators-...

ojnabieoot 6y ago
> but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. The point is that not watching ads actively screws YouTubers over, although the way you phrased it does establish some safe moral distancing from the implications of your actions. The fact that YouTube takes advantage of content creators is no excuse for denying content creators money, which is precisely what an adblocker does. > I believe it's better to support content creators themselves (e.g., directly, or via a Patreon or something similar) This is true and I do it for people I watch regularly. But I am not going to donate directly if I only watch one video, even if I really enjoy it. Patreon is not an adequate substitute for most YouTubers. Pretending it is just dodges the actual implications of using an adblocker. And adblockers are not adequate malware protection, even against malicious ads. Adblockers should not be giving you a false sense of security about this (let alone be used for such a condescending argument).

ojnabieoot 6y ago

> but watching ads does not support Youtubers. It supports Youtube - which you hope translates into Youtube giving money to the Youtuber's whose videos you watched. The point is that not watching ads actively screws YouTubers over, although the way you phrased it does establish some safe moral distancing from the implications of your actions. The fact that YouTube takes advantage of content creators is no excuse for denying content creators money, which is precisely what an adblocker does. > I believe it's better to support content creators themselves (e.g., directly, or via a Patreon or something similar) This is true and I do it for people I watch regularly. But I am not going to donate directly if I only watch one video, even if I really enjoy it. Patreon is not an adequate substitute for most YouTubers. Pretending it is just dodges the actual implications of using an adblocker. And adblockers are not adequate malware protection, even against malicious ads. Adblockers should not be giving you a false sense of security about this (let alone be used for such a condescending argument).