4 ms·
> So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd be
by toastercat 3y ago
> So, on the one hand you have people who use ad blockers. The first retort that comes to mind here is: Well, we'll take our business elsewhere. Which is odd because without ads they aren't paying and them leaving is the goal.
I use an ad blocker. If I can no longer block ads on YouTube, yes I will just stop using YouTube, or use an Invidious/Piped instance. I think your mistake is believing everyone who uses ad-block also believes ad-free YouTube is worth paying for. I do not.
Further, if Invidious, Piped, NewPipe, and yt-dlp stop working as well, I will simply just watch drastically less YouTube, which is what Google wants.
> Somebody has to pay something for youtube to be viable.
I don't care. Would I care if YouTube was run by a small company that didn't employ dark patterns or fuel unhealthy addiction of innappropriate content in kids? Probably, but YouTube is run by megacorp, so no, I don't care about their server costs.
- kristiandupont 3y ago>I think your mistake is believing everyone who uses ad-block also believes ad-free YouTube is worth paying for. I do not. No, they are saying that they will not "lose your business" because there was no business in the first place, which is true.
- asdff 3y agoNonpaying users still have value. If they didn't, companies wouldn't pay for bots to follow them on social media.
- toastercat 3y agoIt was hard to parse that sentence; I see now what they meant, thank you. Although that also seems to imply ad-block users are indignant. I don't mind leaving YouTube.