>They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message. If they can't detect your blocking then you would fall under

>They certainly aren't detecting mine, or are for some reason choosing not to show me the message. If they can't detect your blocking then you would fall under case #1 above. If they can detect it but choose to allow it for whatever reason then it's not part of this discussion. >In order for their customers to have any confidence that they are getting better value from allowing blocking, as the previous assertion, YouTube would have to convincingly prove that they can detect a large majority of blocking and therefore account for it in how they charge for impressions. No, my assertion was that a site that doesn't forbid ad blockers should have a better conversion ratio than one that does, all else being equal, not a better ratio than another arbitrary one. Under the assumption that total_impressions = non_blocking_users * k: total_impressions / non_blocking_users > total_impressions / (non_blocking_users + blocking_users) This is true regardless of how large blocking_users is, both in absolute terms and compared to non_blocking users. Whether you can accurately measure blocking_users also doesn't matter.