We all know that Youtube need to get rid off of AdBlockers because they want to make more money than what they are making now.

Making money by charging for completely optional services is not only not wrong, but the very reason why we have most of the good stuff that we have.

If they just need to cover business costs they could just make the service subscription only, make the fee high enough to keep the site running and earn something and allow to see only the first 10-15% of each video to not subscribed users and forget all this charade about AdBlockers.

Awesome! Submit your resume or send it as a proposal. If they didn't think of this first and discarded it because of reasons that you haven't considered, this might be an opportunity to benefit everyone.

Umm, actually it did. The solution to a problem is to first acknowledge it. The problem is being an asshole that can't let a day go by without rubbing something in.

The YouTube problem? For me it's not a problem any more than anything else price-related. It's interesting to see who is affected by the change and whether it impacts actual customers. What's not interesting is seeing a long string of whinging and schadenfreude from people who strongly believe that it's wrong to pay for services and who have not spent a cent on this. That's ok, believe what you want, but don't be an asshole about it.

So you're openly hating on people for being normal, without offering a single alternative of a video platform that's not all of those things that you labeled as evil.

There are alternatives, they've been posted many times over in this thread and similar ones.

The alternative to shopping isn't shoplifting. The usual things that people list are client side apps that circumvent intended operation of the platform, reaping as many benefits without paying the cost. But hosting isn't free. Running a business isn't free. And hating the people who literally subsidize your unauthorized use of the platform is hypocrisy.

It's not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?

Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.

How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I'm afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven't left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.

Paying for services is normal. It's unrealistic not to. It's unproductive to pretend otherwise.

Because it costs nothing to run data centers, employ thousands of people, distribute exabytes of data.

Do you feel better after making fun of people who use other devices and not just a smartphone and browser? There are a hundred news that aren't your problem and you don't comment there, but you make sure to come in here and "rub it in" to people who care about this, by not providing an actual solution.

Very noble.