Also sign yourself up for googles database of ‘people who will actually pay money if we annoy them enough’ meaning you’ll be a target demographic for future premium services

What exactly is the risk in that?

You need an explanation for why people don't want to be extorted?

Yes, please. I need explanation why "you’ll be a target demographic for future premium services" is a threat to any Premium subscriber in any way.

Because google sell more than just YouTube premium.

But what is the risk? What is the potential downfall, that I am helping with the Premium subscription?

- they start using per-person pricing or continually increase the cost now that they know a nag > purchase workflow works

- that they start applying per-person based costs to other searches (just because gmail is free for me, maybe your account has ‘reached a maximum usage’ and now you must pay, or they just drop storage limits of free to 500kb)

- that they plug that data into their analytics platform and sell the information that you personally will purchase services if nagged enough

Should I continue?

To add, I think the biggest difference here is google is actively engineering detection mechanisms for ublock, and then nagging users who use ublock, most of the people who use ublock probably wouldn’t pay for premium. I’d sooner pay for floatplane than do that.

I get your concerns, but I see it in a different way. I think we are at risk either way.

I think when people are actually vulnerable is when they are using an account-based service, for free. In your example, Gmail. If Google is being a bitch about my Premium service, I will just not pay it, and move on with my life. What does someone do when Google is being a bitch to them with Gmail? Do they change their email at all 100 places they have given their email to, just to resist a small monthly subscription for example, or ads or whatever? So if talking about risk, I'd rather look there.

Wrt ublock, similar deal. They would do that anyways. It's just unimaginable that such a power position as Google's wouldn't get abused.

Bottom line, I don't see how it's a bad thing paying them when they actually offer a paid service. I rather wish that these venture capital magic money free services would go away instead. Services should have a cost, and users should pay those costs as directly as possible. The weird things happen from all the indirections providers employ.

Yes, subscribe to Premium, and pay the reasonable price for the use of a service. Tracking? There is hardly any service that doesn't track its own usage. And whatever VPNs, crypto and scams the content creators peddle is up to the viewer. I barely get VPNs, and no crypto and no scams.

This should be pretty obvious, but Google isn't merely tracking its own usage. Its sole purpose is to digitally surveil you 24/7 and use the obtained information to manipulate you. By subscribing to Premium, you make that job easier for them than when you browse the web without signing in to YouTube, and by extension, Google.

> And whatever VPNs, crypto and scams the content creators peddle is up to the viewer. I barely get VPNs, and no crypto and no scams.

Come on, let's not resort to baseless shaming and blame shifting. The whole point of Premium is supposed to be about getting rid of ads. It demonstrably doesn't do that, making Premium a charity for the richest company in the world. It's 100% on Google for failing to provide any value with Premium.

I think several things are mixed up here.

>By subscribing to Premium, you make that job easier for them than when you browse the web without signing in to YouTube, and by extension, Google.

That has nothing to do with paying for YouTube Premium, but rather, with having signed in with the browser into the Google account, and using that to browse the internet as well. There are many cases where this doesn't happen. For example, if the user logs in on their phone, or smart tv, or uses separate browsers or Firefox Containers or such on PC. Also, google tracks without logging in at all, via Analytics, and by other means as well. Premium is the least of the concern here.

>Come on, let's not resort to baseless shaming and blame shifting.

Nah, you come on. Those ads were embedded in the video stream by the content creator, were they not? The onus is entirely on the uploader.

YT Premium is not charity, but a rather cheap subscription to a great service. It makes the Google ads go away, and with that, lifts a mental burden, because advertising is often plain evil.