> I can see how what I said could be understood this way, but that's not what I meant. Yes people use adblockers to block ads, but if there was a better recomme

> I can see how what I said could be understood this way, but that's not what I meant. Yes people use adblockers to block ads, but if there was a better recommendation mechanism one could pay for and that paid service also blocked ads people like myself might pay for it. Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding! The problem I see with that idea is that whenever YouTube tries to differentiate Premium via features (e.g. background play, downloads, better video quality) people complain about that too. You can see an example of this as the top voted comments of this submission, about "[making] the original product so awful deliberately only so they can shove subscription down your throat". > The value of a person's attention is not zero, even if that person blocks ads. First if people use your service for free, they aren't using the competition. You aren't making much money, but at the same time you're taking away potential revenue from the competition. They're people who aren't willing to pay or watch ads: they'd generate no revenue for another service either. There's a limit to how much "data to improve services" one can use before running into diminishing returns. Network effects are of course a possibility, but I don't know that viewers would follow other viewers to a new platform that directly. This is a two-sided marketplace so in principle you'd expect a feedback cycle: viewers go where the creators are, the creators go where the viewers are. Except here it's not the case that all viewers are equal. Some of them won't be generating any revenue for the creators. Why would the creators chase that audience?