Youtube let the other shoe drop in their end-stage enshittification this week. Last month, they required you to turn on Youtube History to view the feed of youtube videos recommendations. That seems reasonable, so I did it. But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don't get much from my choices. It still did a pretty good job of showing me stuff I was interested in watching.
Then on Oct 1, they threw up a "You're using an Ad Blocker" overlay on videos. I'd use my trusty Overlay Remover plugin to remove the annoying javascript graphic and watch what I wanted. I didn't have to click the X to dismiss the obnoxious page.
Last week, they started placing a timer with the X so you had to wait 5 seconds for the X to appear so you could dismiss blocking graphic.
Today, there was a new graphic. It allowed you to view three videos before you had to turn off your Ad Blocker. I viewed a video 3 times just to see what happens.
Now all I see is this.
Google has out and out made it a violation of their ToS to have an ad blocker to view Youtube. Or you can pay them $$$.
I ban such sites from my systems by replacing their DNS name in my hosts file routed to 127.0.0.1 which means I can't view the site. I have quite a few banned sites now.
The amount of ads on YouTube only seems to get more and more invasive over time. And I'd have less of a problem with them if they didn't keep showing me the same ads over and over and over again.
Even with all that, I would pay (subscription wise, not like I haven't rented/bought movies from them) if I actually knew where the money was going. YouTube is surely expensive to operate, but we don't know how much money it costs to actually run it vs how much money is extracted via executives and shareholders.
If you read around you'll find (perhaps surprisingly to you) that YouTube operates at a loss. So in response to your points:
You can pay to get the ads removed. They make less money off of you when they can't serve you ads, and I'm sure they're trying to operate at less of a loss.
Alphabet is a public company, and it must release certain information about YouTube. Anyways, I'm pretty sure they aren't using the money to directly line the shareholder profits. The reality of it is that it's probably just another arm that Alphabet uses as part of its monopolistic tech deathgrip, so it's not gonna be a straightforward computation. Maybe Disney could be used as a metaphor here?
If you don't wanna pay to support that, I don't exactly blame you. But practically, I don't really agree/expect that YouTube should serve you content (or even more so, people with aggressive adblockers) without you giving something in return. Either you eat ads, you pay for a subscription, or you become the product (unfortunately this last point might be true irregardless).
Basically every tech company "operates at a loss" because of overzealous growth and money going to their investors/parent company/shareholders. I've never seen a detailed breakdown of any tech company's financials released publicly, so I doubt there's any way to prove this one way or another.
Genuinely I'd be interested in seeing a source for this since every metric I've seen from third parties is that ad free purchases gives them waaaaaay more money per user compared to the tiny RPU from ads. But maybe Google being its own ad provider changes that
Never said I was owed anything by them, just that I have no moral or ethical qualms continuing to use adblock on a giant corporation
Where do you read that Youtube is operating at a loss? The last article I can find mentioning that is from something like 10 years ago.
In the last few years they have split Youtube income out of the overall income and it's not like they aren't making money with it - roughly $7B in the last report I can find.
Let's not forget that the strategy of operating at a loss is arguably anticompetitive and monopolistic - not every company has the luxury of doing that, making it extremely difficult to compete against them. Seems pretty clear, with the incessant ads, that they've accomplished the first step in that and are rounding the corner to extracting capital from their users now. So they're not exactly a benevolent actor in this either.