Neither is it my job to buy the advertisers' product. Why should the advertiser have to pay for being shown to people who are so hostile to advertisements that they would block them if they could?

When I used to watch broadcast television I used to do the utmost to avoid the ads by muting during ad break. However, on the occasions that an ad would actively interfere with my watching experience, such as an animation on the channel logo, or a sudden ad break with an ad premeditatedly designed to catch you by surprise (often by "sponsors") I made an explicit decision to boycott said product if I had an opportunity. There are brands that I stopped buying because of these things.

Those people are more valuable:

People who react with antipathy to ads have been removed, increasing the value of the brand messaging by negating brand damage in large-scale ad campaigns.

Because there is no alternative to youtube for putting ads in front of the entire internets video hosting service. Google, meta, twitter, all have such massive captive audiences: their advertisers. Why not squeeze money from their actual customers that have so much of it compared to dubiously effective penny scraping from users? Are the major shareholders of these companies overleveraged in the advertising firms or something?