I don't think it matters for Google. Google is an ad company. Every customer with an ad-blocker is not a customer, it's just a cost. The same goes for every single site on the Internet that has ads. None of them will care if someone who doesn't see ads can't access the website any longer.
I don't really "use Youtube." The algorithm has a ridiculous recency bias so it's full of the newest drama, which I dislike. And even then for a lot of things I'd rather have text than video. But I know a lot of people spend hours every day on Youtube and they will not purchase a subscription to get rid of ads, and they will instead use an ad-blocker. They won't donate to Youtubers but they will use extensions to skip parts of the video that talk about sponsorship.
It makes me think... if people won't pay a subscription to watch hours and hours of video online, they won't give money for anything less either. I've seen some say that they use ad-blockers because some ads may contain malware, or because of some privacy concerns, trying to keep their high moral ground while they access content without paying. The alternative of just... not accessing Youtube or ad-infested websites if you don't like their business model doesn't seem to cross their minds. If the entire Internet was really so full of malware ads trying to steal my private information, I would have uninstalled my web browser ages ago.
To make matters worse, the few websites that do not use ads have paywalls. Guess what happens then? If you post paywalled content, people complain it's behind a paywall. Paywalled contained is looked down upon, compared to freely accessible content, which contains ads, but the ads are ALSO looked down upon. Someone will copy the paywalled text and post it on social media for others to access for free, without ads.
It makes me think that the problem was never the ads.
the problem in my opinion is the perceived value of an individual video.
if youtube videos were looked at, as must have, viewer support might tick upward a bit. the value is probably connected to the creator of the video rather than youtube itself. i personally look forward to hearing from the creator,rather than the conduit, if there was a way to just mail a 5er to the actual video creator, no problems, i would do that.
Comments
I don't think it matters for Google. Google is an ad company. Every customer with an ad-blocker is not a customer, it's just a cost. The same goes for every single site on the Internet that has ads. None of them will care if someone who doesn't see ads can't access the website any longer.
I don't really "use Youtube." The algorithm has a ridiculous recency bias so it's full of the newest drama, which I dislike. And even then for a lot of things I'd rather have text than video. But I know a lot of people spend hours every day on Youtube and they will not purchase a subscription to get rid of ads, and they will instead use an ad-blocker. They won't donate to Youtubers but they will use extensions to skip parts of the video that talk about sponsorship.
It makes me think... if people won't pay a subscription to watch hours and hours of video online, they won't give money for anything less either. I've seen some say that they use ad-blockers because some ads may contain malware, or because of some privacy concerns, trying to keep their high moral ground while they access content without paying. The alternative of just... not accessing Youtube or ad-infested websites if you don't like their business model doesn't seem to cross their minds. If the entire Internet was really so full of malware ads trying to steal my private information, I would have uninstalled my web browser ages ago.
To make matters worse, the few websites that do not use ads have paywalls. Guess what happens then? If you post paywalled content, people complain it's behind a paywall. Paywalled contained is looked down upon, compared to freely accessible content, which contains ads, but the ads are ALSO looked down upon. Someone will copy the paywalled text and post it on social media for others to access for free, without ads.
It makes me think that the problem was never the ads.
the problem in my opinion is the perceived value of an individual video.
if youtube videos were looked at, as must have, viewer support might tick upward a bit. the value is probably connected to the creator of the video rather than youtube itself. i personally look forward to hearing from the creator,rather than the conduit, if there was a way to just mail a 5er to the actual video creator, no problems, i would do that.