> 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 watc

> 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).