In the first quarter of 2025, Google’s revenue amounted to over 89.52 billion U.S. dollars, up from the 79.97 billion U.S. dollars registered in the same quarter a year prior.
… They’ll survive.
I guess the content creators take the hit when users block ads or refuse to use premium.
Edit: your addendum is false. Technically YouTube freely delivers (answers http gets and posts), the user just refuses to watch all of their content or take part in the tracking. No broken windows or climbed fences.
It’s the same mentality of, we shouldn’t mute ads or go to the bathroom when they come on. That’s the advertising businesses problem, not mine. They haven’t made life better for most of us and I refuse to feel guilty of depriving them of money.
If I thought that way about YouTube, why not just be a sovcit about laws in general? I don’t want to cherry pick philosophy. Let’s go all in on technicalities and loopholes and definitions and wording. Life is a video game where X leads to Y because that’s the rules. YouTube is merely answering requests, and I’m merely watching a curated selection of data. They have a TOS but I never agreed to it. For I’m not a user or customer, but a Netizen, and we have rights.
Terms of Service aren’t laws. Breaking them is not illegal. It’s like using the waterslide while sitting and not lying on your back. In fact, it’s explicitly legal to use an adblocker and control what happens on your device in both the EU and the US. There are ongoing debates whether the surveillance required for blocking adblockers is legal in the EU.
Google does break laws all the time by the way, and is holding a monopoly. If people had to pay for Youtube, alternatives would spring up overnight, but since you can still watch Youtube free, they can’t.
Also, I’d be the happiest person if Google finally figured out how to block people with adblockers completely, so that the majority of people would wean themselves off of one of the world’s biggest disinfo peddlers.
I learned the term sovcit. Interesting concept, it isn’t mine though.
You sound angry because there are multiple point of views for a thing and I don’t agree with your pov. I think i get the gist of your reply. But without arguments this discussion is bound to go nowhere.
You say I’m wrong by using adblocking. You didn’t tell why.
depriving content creators of their revenue. Yes. One should think about supporting them through donation platforms like Patreon. They get money from direct marketing (holy…) - I’m fine with that (no JavaScript, no tracking, I can skip ahead since I got the message the first time).
depriving YouTube of the money they need to run their CDN. Partially. Bandwidth usage, maintenance costs. Should I mention that youtube sells/ licenses servers to ISPs… So they get paid by me, indirectly.
TOS I didn’t sign anything, there is no contract between me and YouTube. Or is there one?
Edit: this is not about me wanting you to take my view or wanting to be convinced by you. You may disagree or even despise me. That’s fine.
Everyone has to decide for himself what’s right and wrong and life with it. And maybe I have to rethink my decisions if there are aspects I didn’t take into account or if I lied to me to justify my decisions.
Umm… Maybe. Let’s take a look.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267606/quarterly-revenue-of-google/:
… They’ll survive.
I guess the content creators take the hit when users block ads or refuse to use premium.
Edit: your addendum is false. Technically YouTube freely delivers (answers http gets and posts), the user just refuses to watch all of their content or take part in the tracking. No broken windows or climbed fences.
It’s the same mentality of, we shouldn’t mute ads or go to the bathroom when they come on. That’s the advertising businesses problem, not mine. They haven’t made life better for most of us and I refuse to feel guilty of depriving them of money.
If I thought that way about YouTube, why not just be a sovcit about laws in general? I don’t want to cherry pick philosophy. Let’s go all in on technicalities and loopholes and definitions and wording. Life is a video game where X leads to Y because that’s the rules. YouTube is merely answering requests, and I’m merely watching a curated selection of data. They have a TOS but I never agreed to it. For I’m not a user or customer, but a Netizen, and we have rights.
Terms of Service aren’t laws. Breaking them is not illegal. It’s like using the waterslide while sitting and not lying on your back. In fact, it’s explicitly legal to use an adblocker and control what happens on your device in both the EU and the US. There are ongoing debates whether the surveillance required for blocking adblockers is legal in the EU.
Google does break laws all the time by the way, and is holding a monopoly. If people had to pay for Youtube, alternatives would spring up overnight, but since you can still watch Youtube free, they can’t.
Also, I’d be the happiest person if Google finally figured out how to block people with adblockers completely, so that the majority of people would wean themselves off of one of the world’s biggest disinfo peddlers.
I learned the term sovcit. Interesting concept, it isn’t mine though.
You sound angry because there are multiple point of views for a thing and I don’t agree with your pov. I think i get the gist of your reply. But without arguments this discussion is bound to go nowhere.
You say I’m wrong by using adblocking. You didn’t tell why.
Edit: this is not about me wanting you to take my view or wanting to be convinced by you. You may disagree or even despise me. That’s fine.
Everyone has to decide for himself what’s right and wrong and life with it. And maybe I have to rethink my decisions if there are aspects I didn’t take into account or if I lied to me to justify my decisions.