I think I increased the value of Google's ad network. By opting out of viewing advertisements I would never click for products I would never buy, I increased th

I think I increased the value of Google's ad network. By opting out of viewing advertisements I would never click for products I would never buy, I increased the average CTR and conversion rate of Google ads. But it's a bit more nuanced than that, because it means less money goes to Google (advertisers who would normally show me an ad do not pay for my impressions), but it also means that those advertisers have more efficient campaigns (reduced noise from my impressions that cost money but won't convert into clicks or sales). That's why I'm convinced that when Google forces ads into the eyeballs of someone who wants to block them (like me), it only benefits Google, not its advertisers. In fact it will mostly hurt the advertisers. Sure, possibly it could appear to superficially benefit the advertisers by driving down the average cost per impression, but any benefit from that would be proportionally offset by the reduced conversion rate of impressions from ad-resistant eyeballs. As to your question about living in an idealistic world devoid of advertisements... it's an important question, and I believe everyone has a different answer to it that reflects fundamentally different world views. Some prefer the comfort of being followers. Some want to lead. Some want to take risks and explore. Different people have different tolerances for the unknowns they're exposed to. Personally I don't mind being exposed to unknowns and new opportunities, but I want to have as much control over their distribution as I possibly can. Your analogies to jobs and friends are apt enough, but they fall apart as soon as you add a human element. In particular, my friends and my employers are people whom I trust. That's why I'm open to hearing opportunities from them. Whereas Google is possibly the entity that I trust least in the world. It's worth noting that if YouTube were operated by a more relatable startup, or if it were decentralized with funds propagating directly to creators, then I would be far more sympathetic to its business model. But as it stands, the centralization of Google as an arbiter of payments to my preferred creators is a textbook example of a monopolistic middleman that's captured a market without adding any value beyond basic and commoditized utility. I would also note that I sometimes donate to Twitch streamers, and I subscribe to a few Patreons of YouTubers. My issue is not with them. It's with Google. Oh, and one more thing... I'm not actually costing Google any money. Their costs are derived mostly from storage. And I'm not uploading any video to YouTube (though I've considered uploading an hour of white noise for every minute of advertisement they force on me). The only costs Google can attribute to me are bandwidth costs, which are almost always effectively free, because they're delivering bits to me over peered connections and sometimes even their own fiber.