• Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Imagine if a newspaper could block you from reading an article because you didn’t spend enough time looking at the ads.

    That’s a bad comparison. Newspapers cost money, so you either buy one or you don’t read the articles. Even in the case of free ones, they’re littered with ads. You don’t need to watch them, but they’re still there.

    I hate what youtube is doing just as much as the next guy, but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free. Many of the people complaining about this are gladly paying for Spotify and Netflix. Why not demand those for free too?

    • sugartits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      but I’m yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it should be free

      It is free.

      Put up with the ads and get it for free or pay to make them go away. That’s the deal.