> Youtube gonna fail if everyone and I mean everyone suddenly stopped watching ads

Maybe that would be better? :)

cant expect much from tech bros that want people livelihood disappear

Out of context, but since you brought up AI, have you considered using AI to generate well-formed sentences on social media?

Or do you prefer to burden the reader with the obligation to decipher your vague meaning?

Ad hominem on HN? The audience quality is low these days.

I guess I can't expect much from tech bros who are out of touch with the real world.

Every one of these discussions: “But without ad revenue a bunch of sites might vanish!”

Me: But not internet archive, Wikipedia, or Library Genesis, right? So 90ish% of the Web’s value is safe? Ok sounds good to me, let’s do this.

didn't know wikipedia has content creator, last time I check they called themselves "volunteer" while Wikimedia foundation spends money on DEI project

also why we stop at youtube videos, just pirate the games,steal music and movie etc

but don't cry when they goes bankrupt and stop releasing new games,movie etc anymore

we can just generate new art,music,movie,games etc with AI

after all, tech industries is created just for that

This is the core of the faith which communists have. We take everything and give nothing back and then wonder why nobody wants to create anything. Goods and services simply materialize out of thin air. It's a meteorological phenomena really.

Other business models are fine. I would support almost any amount of legal push-back on ads, though, and don’t care what happens to ad brokers.

I understand you about the implied contract. I think it's more complex than that. People were making videos before the promise of ad revenue, and they were better videos. If people go away who make videos for money - which will never happen - it would be an improvement overall. If ad blockers do win, YT could edit their ads into the videos themselves making an ad blocker's job harder. YTers who want money could make their own independent deals with advertisers, as some do today. And YT can always charge money - as they do right now with premium. But if YT did that for all tiers, they couldn't dominate and they'd have competitors spring up. They know that. They also know if they ever asked anyone whether they agree to watch ads, most would say No. The prevalence of Ad blockers are proof that people don't want to watch the ads. But, as you point out, we do accept the free content. The thing is the world would likely be better if YT would charge everyone for access. Judging from video quality these days a lot of YTers could be doing something more productive than what they're doing now - I mean in an objective sense, better for economic health. But the real reason for these $0 tech services is to stifle competition and prevent the market from working. And that works to everyone's detriment. Basic economics doesn't function without prices.