YT decided to build their site on top of the world wide web; a technological foundation that inherently gives users a lot of control. If I decide that I don't want to render some specific HTML element, then I'm not going to render it. If I decide that I don't want to execute some JS, then I'm not going to execute it. That's fundamentally how the WWW functions. So I simply instruct my browser to not display things that annoy me, such as ads. This is "working as intended".

YT didn't have to build their platform on the web. Nobody forced them to. They could avoid all of these issues by setting up a dedicated client application using a custom protocol with ads already baked into the video stream, for example.

I don't feel like I have an intrinsic right to any content on YT. But I do feel like I have an intrinsic right to use the web the way it's supposed to be used. Which, of course, includes simply ignoring any HTML, CSS, JS or other bits that I don't like. I'm free to send whatever HTTP requests I want to YT, YT is free to respond with whatever they want and I'm free to do whatever I want with their responses. That's just how it is.

If YT doesn't like that... again, nobody is forcing them to use the WWW. They are free to use some locked down technology that better fits their specific needs.

Claiming that I am morally obligated to look at ads on YT is like claiming that I'm morally obligated to look at ads in a print magazine. I hold the magazine in my hands. I flip the pages. I guide my eyes towards the things I want to look at and away from the things I don't want to look at. This is not a surprise to anyone, it's just how reading a magazine works. Same thing with YT ads and the WWW.

> the problem is that you feel you have an intrinsic right to the content

Not at all.

I no more claim the right to force someone to serve any given video to me than to force authors to send me copies of their books, musicians to perform for me, etc.

The tl;dr of my position is basically: you don't have to make it free, but you can't pay for it with surveillance capitalism (or at least you can't force anyone to participate when you try to do so).

If you serve data to me over the internet, I have a right to process that data however I want, including ignoring parts of it, and that that cannot be made subject to some contract or deal. Similarly, I can rip the ads out of magazines, skip ads in recordings of TV, etc. etc. and there's nothing the "content creator" can do about it.

Ads are not a deal or an obligation, they're the hope that if you show enough of them it'll be good enough for someone's business that they're willing to pay you for doing so. If you make the ads unbearable or show so many of them that too many people take steps to avoid them, that's your problem.

Make ads acceptable to enough people or find another business model[0].

[0] Not particularly relevant, but I pay for YouTube Premium and plenty of others, both platforms and individual creators. I still aggressively run all possible ad and tracking blockers against every site/platform. It's not about getting free content, it's about avoiding and ideally ending user tracking and targeted ads aka surveillance capitalism.

>their video platform

When I go to the cinema, that's the cinema's video platform.

In my house, on the equipment that I paid thousands of dollars for and support, using the connection I'm paying for... that's my platform.

>they'll have just as much right to stop serving you videos when you're blocking ads

That's literally what I said they should do. "They don't like it, they can feel free to not send me network traffic."

>stop leaving your children unattended on brain slop videos

I don't have kids. But I have, out of morbid interest, been down the rabbithole of the weird ultra-creepy AI stuff that comes up in their "childrens videos" category.

Some of those creepy AI channels have millions of subscribers.

It's all obviously some kind of weird scam, but google would still be getting ad revenue for it.

If they're going to have a childrens videos category, then obviously they should be moderating it.

For adult stuff yes I would complain of censorship.

I guess, first, I'll caveat all this with: I have enough money to buy things.

I pay for YT premium because I put my money where my mouth is.

I also simply avoid content that has ads, and have ended up blocking a lot of sources from my news apps because of the ads-to-quality ratio not being worth it. I also don't try to get around paywalls. When I get a pop up that asks me to enable cookies to see the content, or subscribe, I just close the page and don't consume the content because I don't like the terms.

I tip because, even though I think the tipping system is entirely bullshit (and never got tips while working in fancy restaurant kitchens because there was no tip sharing), people deserve to make a living and me stiffing people on their tips is just me being shitty and not some grand revolutionary gesture against the system.

What I don't do is create my own terms on which to still consume the content/services I'm getting.

Also worth noting that absolutely none of this represents some endorsement of that companies like Google, Meta, etc do (in particular in the ads-based world).

I don't like ads, I don't like shitty JS. I don't like being "forced" (by norms) to tip.

I just agree to either paying for something (directly or indirectly), or not using the product.

And, maybe most of all, I don't believe that Google being shitty means I can be shitty. My ethics are mine, and they're not relative.