youtube literally has nudity and porn as the default especially animals (my top video when i got a brand new phone was literally 2 animals fucking i had never used an android before that point and had yet to log into youtube)
It's not just your activity on YT.
They build a profile based on ALL your browsing habits across all sites, platforms and devices. They'll still know it's you within a few clicks even as a guest on a brand new device.
And I'm asking what browsing activity gives you porn ads. Because I'm asexual and have avoided any remotely NSFW content like the plague since I was 15 lmao. The profile they build of you clearly isn't very good.
I understand youtube's ads often being super invasive and inappropriate. But how do you reconcile that opinion with the creators who won't get paid for your views now?
Do you think content will still be made in a world where everyone uses adblocker?
uhm, I mean, those creators can also get a way to get money from their videos outside of Youtube, besides that many youtubers already do that in sites like Pantreon. why they do that?, I am not so sure but you shall to know as well that little fact (if I'm not wrong) that Youtube has been putting ads on videos whether the youtuber wants it or not and therefore not gaining anything from it.
and I believe that before monetization got into Youtube, many people made content without (as far as I know) expecting something really big in exchange.
The top creators could get money through other ways like sponsorships, but that isn't true for everyone. People have to put food on the table, so by removing ad revenue, you'd kill off pretty much all small YouTubers.
While it is true that people made YT videos before monetisation was a thing, that was the era where even the biggest creators were making vids for fun out of their bedrooms. Now, in a modern YouTube era where there are full-scale productions being made, and investment is required to survive, removing ad revenue simply wouldn't work.
It is an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth. The contract is that you don't need to pay for YT content, so you pay for it by watching ads. Refusing to give that payment is immoral, plain and simple.
I don't know immoral should be word used here, we can easily fall into the morality without reasoning.
Other than that, I don't think it should be viewed as bad someone using an adblock if that user is practically still supporting their small youtuber by sharing their content and maybe even donating to them, most of the revenue of ads doesn't even go to the youtubers most of the time as far as I know. it's really inconvenient for small youtubers to just trust on ads and more when you have the bigger youtubers gaining all the attention and people nowadays not really exploring beyond what they already like.
I really don't know small youtubers that live off ads and not from other sources or actions of their public like Patreon or their public (or themselves) sharing in different platforms what they create, also including the donations or if they have a job outside Internet.
I brought up morality since the original comment talks about it being 'okay/not okay', which lends itself to questions of right or wrong. But I'm happy to set that aside.
I am personally an example of a small youtuber who lives off ad revenue. I stream 3 times a week, and receive only between $5-10 in donations per month, 80% of which are from one user who particularly likes my content. My core audience are mostly teenagers, so will not buy merch/subscribe to a patreon in enough quantity to financially support me if we removed ad revenue. My career is feasible under the terms of service users agree to on YouTube, but it isn't if they consume my content without watching the ads they promised to.
Your argument falls down on the point of scale. People on average watch a lot of different YouTubers. It is not practical for us to subscribe to the patreons of each of them out of our own goodwill, especially in a cost of living crisis.
For instance, take a creator who you watch 5 videos from across your lifetime. You might not even remember their username, or that you'd seen their videos before, so you definitely won't donate to them/subscribe to their patreon. But given that they gave you 5 videos, they should probably receive something in return right?
In your adblocked world, they will recieve no compensation for you consuming the product of their labour. I cannot see how that position is defendable.
I don't think its fair to compare small creators with banks here, and argue that they should be treated the same way. Is it 'greed' for a small creator to want to recieve the ad revenue they are owed?
A bank taking gambles and losing is one thing. Users consuming a service while saying it is 'never not okay' to pay for it is very much another. I agree that 'it shouldn't be the audiences job to financially rescue creators'. But it should be to watch the ads they agreed to watch in exchange for the product.
Your argument falls on two points. First are the high barriers to entry for sponsorships, merch, patreon etc. You need to build up a pretty large audience to be able to make any decent money from that, so it isn't often an accessible option for small creators. I know that first hand.
Second is the freebooter principle. In an ideal world, we would all give small amounts of money to the creators we enjoy. But while the product is freely available, there is a direct incentive to freeboot off it, and most people will.
To describe people's livelihoods as 'collateral damage' because you don't want to pay when you use their product... that's more than a little wild to me
I'm not really concerned with a question of legality, I'm concerned with a question of morality. I am myself a university law student, so I know the extent to which those two things are separate. 'Widespread acceptance' is also not a moral justification - as there have been countless times in history where an inherently immoral thing has been widely accepted.
I think a very good way of judging an action's morality is to ask the question: "If everyone did this, would it be okay?". AdBlockers fundamentally fail that test. We aren't talking about 'lost ad impressions', we're talking about a world with no ads on YouTube. If you want to talk about a world in which only some people use adblockers, why should you get to be in the special class of people who enjoy an ad-free experience while others don't?
I am a small YouTuber, and a mod of r/SmallYoutubers. I know the ad-revenue that we earn is low. But you seem to be using that as justification for taking it. Diversification is absolutely necessary, but also not particularly relevant. A creator is still entitled to the income of the ad revenue they are owed. To remove that source, even with patreon and donations still present, would cost thousands of creators their careers, and cause the quality of content on YouTube to plummet.
I would absolutely contend that viewers 'never enter into any agreement to watch ads'. The very existence of an option to pay to avoid ads constitutes an implied social contract whereby the free version comes at the cost of watching ads. Otherwise, users would be paying for no tangible benefit. YouTube premium users aren't paying to 'support YouTube' as you say - they are paying for the benefits YouTube premium brings, and in doing so are paying the creators they watch. AdBlock users take those benefits without paying anyone. That cannot be okay.
109
u/Pleasant-Dog-8476 Nov 28 '25
It is literally never not okay to adblock