Your comment assumes two things.
The fist point is a fact of life.
The second one is simply not fact. It could be profitably, but it is far from guaranteed. They could just as easily make far more money by keeping the paid tier ad-free to avoid the loss of subscribers.
I know I have not be a very good echo in this echo chamber, but you don't think it's a tad ridiculous to say YouTube is forcing it down anyones throat? Nobody is forcing anyone to watch YouTube, yet you say it as if they are.
Not to mention they literally have a legitimate option to remove the ads, so they REALLY aren't forcing it down your throat. Which means if the service isn't worth it enough to you to pay for it or watch ads, don't use it?
Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
This is not only adequately explained by stupidity, but it makes the most logical sense to be explained by stupidity. They are actively fighting a war with AdBlockers. They are trying to block AdBlockers, and AdBlockers are working as quickly as possible to fight those changes. Then Google has to fire back as quickly as possible. This is resulting in rapid published changes to counteract AdBlockers and their retaliation. It makes all too much sense that their fight against AdBlockers did not work as intended. The people making these changes are Google software developers, and I really do not think any of them have an issue with Mozilla.
The problem is that the paid option eventually gets ads anyway.
The problem is that YouTube hasn't done something, but you think they will? Cable television has basically always had commercials. When it started, it was mostly just government broadcasts, but when it got popularly commercialized, adverts were introduced. Netflix has a paid option with ads, but they also still have an ad-free option, so that still doesn't really substantiate your argument either.
There is no real evidence to think they will add ads to their paid service. Of course it's possible, but we don't need to make up things Google might do in the future to call them evil. There's plenty of things they're currently doing.
Yeah except changing your user agent to chrome bypasses the load slowdown lol
Did you test this yourself? Rather than just ask your source, I was going to test it myself. However, I cannot get a slow down at all. Everything is loading instantly and ad-free. Perhaps the servers providing my instance of YouTube don't have the change, I'm not sure, but I have not been able to personally create this. So without a reliable source or evidence, I cannot just take your word for it that changing the user-agent alone fixed the issue.
I said it gives the appearance of something
You said you feel that people are either lazy or unknowledgeable based on how they write. I am saying that is an unsympathetic feeling to conclude based on someone's writing.
It’s like they just typed whatever popped into their head without any consideration of how to convey it.
Your personal feeling is that this is a bad thing, I assume. I am challenging you to view it differently.
the reading experience should be considered
What about the writers experience? Why aren't you considering them? My point is that everything you say about the writer in regards to their poor English, or thoughts not being fully fleshed out, can be interpreted differently than your initial view.
I didn't comment on emoji use, but rather just the assumptions you made based on someone's English. Though I understand why you mentioned it, since the thread is about Emoji use.
I value YouTube, at most, at about $5 a month. I can easily do without it.
There you have it. If the cost of the service is not worth it, then users won't buy it. Either enough users will pay for it that the service will stay as it is for the price it is, they will decrease the cost of the service, or improve the service they are offering. Or, given Google's track record, just kill of the service entirely.
I will also point out that many users pay for Spotify for $11 USD a month. YouTube premium includes YT Music, which is a direct competitor to Spotify. So for users who pay for Spotify, it would be virtually $3 for ad-free YouTube. Of course this doesn't work if you don't pay for a music streaming service, but as far as services go it certainly isn't unreasonably priced. Sure, it may be unfair that they don't offer just a YT ad-free package, perhaps with all this backlash they will. Or perhaps not. It's Google, they'll do whatever they fuck they want.
Capitalism as an idea is not bad. America's current state of capitalism is very bad. This idea you just suggested also is not bad. But I think would be even worse than our current state of capitalism if it were attempted to be implemented. Greed would be present in any system, including this idealistic one where people pay for the costs of a service if able, to allow those who cannot to enjoy it also.
The argument I am making is in regards to stealing. I assume your argument also applied to other corporations in regards to the distribution and payment of goods/services, though regardless most people agree stealing is wrong. Most people see the prevention of theft as acceptable. I am merely pointing out the double standard most people up in arms are placing on this change. Most people do not see AdBlocking as stealing, though by definition they are using a paid service for free without the services consent. That seems to me like stealing. I am not here to discuss alternatives to our state capitalism, that is for a different thread. And stealing as a way to accomplish this new system also seems to be extremely, shall we say, ineffective?
You know the internet isn't actually magic, right? You know that storing and distributing data costs real money, and doesn't just magically appear on your computer screen. Video hosting is quite literally, insanely fucking expensive. That's the reality of it. The absolute absurd amount of storage it takes to host YouTube is truly mind boggling. Then they have to have who knows how much money in data transfer to both upload the videos, and then stream them out to however many users. That's not even including the fact that they do actually give money to their creators. Some of them make quite a substantial amount of it, no less. I haven't even mentioned the team with YouTube developing, maintaining, servicing, their technical equipment. All the customer support, the relations managers, the YouTube partner managers, and all the other hundreds of behind the scenes staff.
YouTube costs money. I think you don't disagree with that. Perhaps the part you have a problem with is thinking you, a single person, aren't costing them money. And sure, if you were literally the only person doing it, it really wouldn't be noticeable. But given all the uproar, it's very clear it's not just you. By how many people are upset, it's clear it's actually quite a substantial amount of people. So if you think all of those people aren't costing YouTube money, then I really cannot help teach you basic money any further.
If you're argument is instead that all these people mad about AdBlocker blocking are costing YouTube money, but not enough for them to lose money or even substantial profits, then I really don't know what to tell you. If that is your argument, then you are trying to argue that YouTube should eat the profits so users can steal more. Which really just doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, that's very similar to getting pissed that Walmart is making it harder to shoplift because Walmart make so much money. And yet nobody is suggesting Walmart make it easier to shoplift, because people as a whole see shoplifting as stealing, but don't see AdBlock as stealing. Quite frankly, that's just a result of an ignorance as to how technology works and what things actually cost.
And if you're suggesting something else, then I don't know what it is and you'll need to further clarify if you want me to better understand.
Regardless of what you may say, nobody is up in arms about Walmart's, or any other commercial retailer's, anti-theft changes. Adding ink tags to merchandise, locking things up in whatever method they chose, camera's out the wazoo. Nobody is up in arms because nobody thinks it's bad that they are trying to stop people from stealing.
You can try and dismiss me by saying I am defending Google, but it doesn't make what you're saying correct. YouTube is a paid service. To block the ads means to get that paid service for free. The content you are freely consuming is actively costing YouTube money. For them to stop you from freely consuming their product is very much so similar to Walmart making measures to stop shoplifters. You can view physical stealing and digital stealing as different, but they are the same thing. One is just less likely to get caught.
And just to be clear, I steal online content all the time. From digital movies/shows, to using AdBlockers on sites. Stealing is wrong, therefore what I am doing is wrong. Though it certainly is difficult to feel bad that the billion dollar corporations are missing out on my couple of bucks, or a random site didn't get $0.001 from my ad view. Regardless, just how a shoplifter can understand why Walmart would make it harder to shoplift, I can understand why YouTube would make it harder to AdBlock. Do I like it? Obviously not. But it's silly to sit here and suggest them fighting adblockers is what makes them evil, and not all the hidden tracking and absurd data collection.
I think you raise valid points. My counter argument to you would be this: how does the average strength/dexterity/whatever measurement of sports of cisgender woman compare to the average transsexual woman? While one transsexual woman can still be beat by many women, it could arguably be unfair that their transition put them in the top ranking of the women's league, even if they aren't number 1.