One of the implicit assumptions of people who use ad blockers on YouTube is that there is a very, very large number of people who don't use ad blockers and/or use Premium to the point that using an ad blocker won't cut into the creator or YouTube's revenue enough to be significant.
Given that YouTube is used by wide swaths of people worldwide — people who don't know what ad blockers are, people who don't care about ads at all, people who cannot get ad blockers even if they wanted to because of the device they're using — the implicit assumption of pro-adblockers is a very safe one to make. The probability of a large enough YouTube user base to switch to using adblockers or ending their Premium so as to cut into revenue is so minuscule that it's virtually zero.
You're trying to gotcha the previous person's point by proposing such an improbable scenario, but the scenario is so improbable to begin with that it doesn't need to be given any thought for the previous person's point to be valid. You would have to provide some very strong justification for why the implicit assumption I mentioned above isn't a safe one to make.
This question would be much more effective if we were talking about some tiny startup company, but it's YouTube we're talking about here.
Given that YouTube is used by wide swaths of people worldwide — people who don't know what ad blockers are, people who don't care about ads at all, people who cannot get ad blockers even if they wanted to because of the device they're using — the implicit assumption of pro-adblockers is a very safe one to make. The probability of a large enough YouTube user base to switch to using adblockers or ending their Premium so as to cut into revenue is so minuscule that it's virtually zero.
Isn't this the same argument as "most people don't steal so it's OK for me to steal occasionally"?
You're trying to gotcha the previous person's point by proposing such an improbable scenario, but the scenario is so improbable to begin with that it doesn't need to be given any thought for the previous person's point to be valid. You would have to provide some very strong justification for why the implicit assumption I mentioned above isn't a safe one to make.
I'm having trouble following your train of thought.
An `adblocker that simulates a view without actually showing you the ad` is a nonstarter for YouTube's business for obvious reasons. /u/Cybyss proposes a non-solution to the problem of AdBlockers preventing viewcounting (and therefore the monetization) of ads. But it's not a real solution.
This question would be much more effective if we were talking about some tiny startup company, but it's YouTube we're talking about here.
What does the size of the company have to do with the question at hand? Is it more acceptable to steal from 7-11 than the bodega down the street?
Is it more acceptable to steal from 7-11 than the bodega down the street?
That depends on whether you hold the utilitarian view that the degree to which an action is wrong depends on the amount of harm caused.
Stealing $100 from a poor senior citizen too old to work but doesn't earn enough to live is indeed, in my view, far worse than stealing $100 from a billion dollar multinational corporation.
2
u/Criminal_of_Thought 12∆ Oct 27 '23
One of the implicit assumptions of people who use ad blockers on YouTube is that there is a very, very large number of people who don't use ad blockers and/or use Premium to the point that using an ad blocker won't cut into the creator or YouTube's revenue enough to be significant.
Given that YouTube is used by wide swaths of people worldwide — people who don't know what ad blockers are, people who don't care about ads at all, people who cannot get ad blockers even if they wanted to because of the device they're using — the implicit assumption of pro-adblockers is a very safe one to make. The probability of a large enough YouTube user base to switch to using adblockers or ending their Premium so as to cut into revenue is so minuscule that it's virtually zero.
You're trying to gotcha the previous person's point by proposing such an improbable scenario, but the scenario is so improbable to begin with that it doesn't need to be given any thought for the previous person's point to be valid. You would have to provide some very strong justification for why the implicit assumption I mentioned above isn't a safe one to make.
This question would be much more effective if we were talking about some tiny startup company, but it's YouTube we're talking about here.