While I disagree with trying to prevent Adblock, I’m a recent convert to YouTube premium and it’s just so nice. I only tried it after using my girlfriend’s account on our TV for a bit, I was vehemently against it prior.
Am I super happy about paying for YouTube? No. Is it worth ~CAD$30/mo to not worry about ads anywhere, have background playback on mobile, and support the folks I watch? Absolutely.
The terrible thing is that, buried deep under the mound of trash, somewhere among the million videos of pathetic grifters and desperate attention-seekers and supremely-confident cranks, there is quality content.
That's also part of the issue of YouTube premium, we talk a lot about the pricing but the fact that you can't search videos makes the platform less valuable as a media platform.
Google is designing YouTube as a ad distribution platform, not as a media platform and it shows
Not sure what you mean? I’m also not super happy paying the amount that I do for rent. That doesn’t mean I don’t like my apartment or that I’m not willing to stomach that extra amount for the value I get.
I’d prefer they were both cheaper. That doesn’t prevent me from seeing the value they provide me.
I'd pay maybe $5/month max, which is infinitely more than they make from me now given I block everything and have as far as I recall never willingly clicked on an internet ad in my life.
$30 a month?? No way I'd consider YT worth as much as all other streaming services combined..
Maybe I'd consider $3. Especially since even "ad free" videoes themselves now have lots of ads baked into them by the creators. Not a fan of the double dipping.
That’s a family membership IIRC. It’s for 5 or 6 people. We don’t have any other streaming services and spend a lot of time watching and listening to YouTube, so it’s well worth it.
If you want to remove those embedded ads, SponsorBlock and DeArrow are great extensions to make YouTube more bearable!
I would gladly pay money for Youtube, but I'd sooner eat a live subway rat than pay money to Youtube.
Even if I believed a for-profit model were appropriate for the largest repository of the world's video content, I wouldn't want AlphaGoogle to be the company implementing that model.
So if youtube wasn't owned by google, you'd be happy to have paid?
I actually think this is irrational, because reason google is forcing thru anti-consumer features is _because_ they can't get enough revenue out of youtube!
Youtube generates tens of billions of dollars in revenue per year, for a company that generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue per year.
If you're skeptical about how/if massive corporations are able to leverage their market power and monopolization to generate monstrous profits and force through very anti-consumer features, I'd encourage you to read Goliath from Matt Stoller: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Goliath/Matt-Stoller/...
> So if youtube wasn't owned by google, you'd be happy to have paid?
Maybe.
YouTube should have to police copyright for the little guys as strongly as they do for the big guys. Instead, YouTube is happy to flat out steal content from little guys while stomping all over fair use when the big guys are involved.
I don't wish to support that. I want YouTube to go under so we can maybe get a video site that doesn't suck.
I'm not against paying premium personally but the pricing is INSANE, it's probably 10x higher than what they would get with ads per user.
I'm skeptical they even consider YouTube premium a real option internally or if it's just there for potential regulators.
I also don't like the trend to blame adblock, Google is losing money now because there's an advertising scandal where they lied to customers, that's not adblocks fault.
Same here. Apparently paying for products is a controversial thing these days. Never mind that the monthly cost is about the same as a single meal at an average fast-casual restaurant.
$20 a month for unlimited, unrestricted access to literally millions of hours of high quality content is a really good deal. I regret having waited so long and wasted so much time waiting to click through ads.
SmartTube Next is great, and I do use that on my Shield now for sponsorblock. On web I recommend adding DeArrow to your YouTube extensions to make the experience a bit more bearable. Hopefully they add that in soon too!
YouTube takes a 45% cut. So out of that $30, YouTube pays a few cents for bandwidth, and takes $13.50 thanks to its dominant market position. I'd much rather watch with AdBlock and donate via Gumroad or Patreon.
Right. And the other 55% goes to… the folks I watch.
Steam takes a 30% cut or something when I buy video games. I’m not about to start pirating games and mailing cheques to the developer.
I don’t assume that my YT Premium is paying for lavish meals for my favourite channels. But I watch lots of different channels, not all of which I’m going to sponsor on Patreon. They at least get something.
If you live in Turkey, or happen to "visit" there for a short period of time, Youtube premium is $15cad / $11usd for 12 month subscription, or alterantively a few dollars a month.
The problem with YT premium is that I often browse in Incognito for enhanced privacy and YouTube premium doesn’t work in incognito. So I would still be seeing ads half of the time, if I didn’t use an adblocker.
Yeah, still not budging. They keep shoving multiple obnoxious ads every few minutes in the video. It is the same as the predatory monetization approach in the (mobile) gaming industry where authors makes the original product so awful deliberately only so they can shove subscription down your throat. Basically selling you solution for a problem they created.
Screw that mentality, not paying them. And I don't mind paying for a service btw - I have a premium Odysee for example.
Agreed, it makes a difference how a service came to be in its current state. The present offerings are the product of a long decline after years of deliberate enshitification. Don't support the rent seekers at google.
I don’t want to give Google my credit card, because in case of any problem/litigation, they can take away my Gmail. They’ve painted themselves in a corner with routinely deleting accounts for political reasons.
Aside from the issue here, and the PRIVACY mess, it's the best thing since email was invented.
Availability, universally accepted, free (to the product: you), large storage, easy to use.
There is no serious competition, and I say this as a Hotmail user since well before Larry and Sergey opened their doors.
I have a vanity domain which MX's to Gmail so I can move it to another service _when_ they bumrush me, but I don't want to have that happen so I keep my account in good standimg.
Other than self-hosting or a paid service, do you have a suggestion for an alternative?
I know I'm not the OP, but I'm genuinely interested in this.
I don't know about good free alternative with support etc. That's also why I'm paying ~50$/year for a mailserver hosting - I've moved from gmail to just that and so far I'm quite happy.
Maybe someday I will spin up my mailserver also, but for now this is quite good balance between convenience & price for me.
AS far as I'm concerned, the best thing since email was invented is Fastmail.
The non-monetary costs of using gmail over a longer period are far higher than paying money for Fastmail.
Most importantly, I know I can rely on my email.
I don't. That's why I explicitly wrote that I don't mind paying for a service and also gave an example of another service I'm paying for... See the very last sentence in my post.
edit: To make it really clear, Odysee is not the only thing I'm paying for. I'm also paying for example for Apple Family, HBO GO, Spotify, mailhosting etc. I'm also sponsoring SponsorBlock extension. As I said: I don't have a problem with paying for a product or service. I have a big problem when someone deliberately and needlesly cripples a product just so they can sell you a solution to the (unnecessary) problem they artificially created. I mean: Background play behind a paywall? Really? Is that the bar that we think is acceptable these days?
I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter that you're paying for other services, or your taxes, or for your groceries. If you're using that particular service for free in a manner that's not intended, and you justify it by saying that you don't like the way they run things... then that's a questionable moral position, and not a compelling argument.
I'm not a big fan of everything YouTube does either, but this stance of yours bothers me, too.
> I have a big problem when someone deliberately and needlesly cripples a product just so they can sell you a solution to the (unnecessary) problem they artificially created
The whole of YouTube is artificially created. It wouldn't be there without the people who run it, and they get to decide how they want to monetize. You can take it or leave it, or say "screw your rules, I'm using this anyway". Just realize that this is not necessarily read as some form of rebellion against the man or whatever, but instead as a neat excuse to help yourself to some free content.
The content on YouTube you're watching also would not exist without the people who create it. It would be nice if you gave back to at least some of them, somehow, in a way that's independent from YouTube. That would be a more interesting and constructive position to take.
Youtube also lies regularly about the current quality. I often see 1080p (Auto) or 720p (Auto) which it selects by default. But when I reselect it manually, because it’s clear that it’s not, it suddenly starts rebuffering. Happens all the time.
It's not exactly lying per se, but i suspect what's happening is that the player is trying to buffer the higher resolution version of the video stream, while playing the lower resolution (so as not to interrupt the video). However, the higher res stream is taking a while to download, and if that happens, the current video position has surpassed the buffered high-res video length, and so the process starts again (and the end result is that the user end up downloading chunks of the high-res video, but never watching any of it).
This is why i prefer to force high-res in the first place, and have it buffer enough to play the entire video without stopping. Unfortunately, google considers this wasted bandwidth, or something...this option is not available unless you use browser mods to do it.
while playing the lower resolution (so as not to interrupt the video)
That is another thing, which I don’t mind (if I understand it right). Sometimes internet becomes worse temporarily and that approach is okay.
But in the described case it plays a whole video in this hypothetical “mode”, never trying to go up. My internet is not greatest, but when I switch from “720p (Auto)” to “720p” it takes only a couple of seconds to then play it without any further interruptions. It doesn’t add up. I believe they are simply saving traffic on those who look at the quality setting and either think “well, maybe it’s just shitty bitrate 720/1080p” or have no clue at all.
Rock solid 300/100 Mbps here, I've noticed the same behavior. It's either intentional or buggy and given how long it's been going on now, I don't think it's buggy. Don't let people convince you it's your internet connection.
They have also started rolling out "Premium HD (1080p)" as an additional quality level for paying users. I can't tell a difference to regular 1080p (for now), though.
I don’t know if it’s the same in the other ‘developed but not America’ economies but Youtube premium is really expensive in Australia. It’s literally double the price of a Netflix subscription and represents way less ‘value’ for me.
Part of that could be the bundled music subscription, which has zero value for me when I use and prefer Spotify, but it just seems like a very expensive niche product here which makes me surprised they’re pushing it so hard. They have a straight ad-free offering in some markets that seems much closer to something I’d actually pay for.
Lose the music stuff and charge A$9.99 a month and you’d have me.
Edit: I realised I was looking at the Apple subscription price at $19.99 for an individual rather than the online sign-up one. $14.99 still seems too high when my entire Amazon subscription with a video service and free-delivery is still roughly $10/mo.
I wonder how are they "detecting adblock". Let's say I have an alternative youtube client like smartyoutubetv. What will they do? Check if ads are loaded? Fine, the software can be written to load the ads, but not display them. Will they check the timing info? (that you pull a part of the video, then pull the ad for 30s,then the rest?). Will they encode the ad right into the video stream? The app can be coded with a play buffer. Like the tivo "skip ads on TV feature" of decades ago.
There is no way youtube can win this battle using "brute force". The only way they can win this is by offering a new better service, not deteriorating existing ones. What could that new service be? How about recommendations that don't suck? I used to watch a lot of youtube on my TV from the main page. These days I only use a list of my subscribed channels and a search feature.
Also, if youtube gets really aggressive people will go elsewhere.
It'll be really hard to win that battle with Google, because:
1. they own the browser (Chrome is the dominant browser) and with their "Web Integrity API" proposal they can do whatever they want. Also v3 doesn't help adblockers.
2. they own youtube and all the content. I've seen many youtube creators speak against adblocking, because no ads = no income for them. Most people can't create content at consistently high level without getting paid for their time or their team time. So Google and content producers both are better off without ad-blockers.
The web in 5 years sadly will lose most of the freedoms we take for granted, because nothing is "free" if it requires human time and resources. May be with crypto some pockets would emerge but large scale monopolies like Youtube with strong network effects wouldn't bulge.
Why does it all need to be so complicated? Any time an ad should play, the content can effectively be paused (unable to be played/buffered) for the duration of the ad so you could skip the ad, but would still have to wait to resume the content.
> There is no way youtube can win this battle using "brute force". The only way they can win this is by offering a new better service, not deteriorating existing ones. What could that new service be? How about recommendations that don't suck?
It seems like you're saying that people are mainly using adblockers because the recommendations aren't good enough, and if the recommendations were improved they'd respond by turning off the adblock? That doesn't sound realistic. People use ad blockers because they don't like to watch ads, and since the adblockers let them avoid ads with no effort or cost. The site offering "better service" doesn't change that equation.
> Also, if youtube gets really aggressive people will go elsewhere.
Oh, no! The people who are not willing to pay for the service and who are blocking ads are going elsewhere! How can the platform and the creators possibly survive without that $0 in revenue?
Maybe if YouTube premium wasn't 10x the revenue of a normal ad user and YouTube creates a real way to browse videos it would work? It worked for Netflix, I don't see why it would not work for them.
The reality is that Google depends too much on its ads business and can't afford to spin their business model.
>It seems like you're saying that people are mainly using adblockers because the recommendations aren't good enough, and if the recommendations were improved they'd respond by turning off the adblock?
I can see how what I said could be understood this way, but that's not what I meant. Yes people use adblockers to block ads, but if there was a better recommendation mechanism one could pay for and that paid service also blocked ads people like myself might pay for it.
>Oh, no! The people who are not willing to pay for the service and who are blocking ads are going elsewhere! How can the platform and the creators possibly survive without that $0 in revenue?
The value of a person's attention is not zero, even if that person blocks ads. First if people use your service for free, they aren't using the competition. You aren't making much money, but at the same time you're taking away potential revenue from the competition.
Imagine all these people that use ad block would get up and go somewhere else? More people that watch ads would follow in short order.
Then there are other things these people do. Patron payments, even just popularising certain creators has value to these creators, finally simple engagement like comments etc have value that they create data that can be used to improve the service and so on.
> I can see how what I said could be understood this way, but that's not what I meant. Yes people use adblockers to block ads, but if there was a better recommendation mechanism one could pay for and that paid service also blocked ads people like myself might pay for it.
Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding!
The problem I see with that idea is that whenever YouTube tries to differentiate Premium via features (e.g. background play, downloads, better video quality) people complain about that too. You can see an example of this as the top voted comments of this submission, about "[making] the original product so awful deliberately only so they can shove subscription down your throat".
> The value of a person's attention is not zero, even if that person blocks ads. First if people use your service for free, they aren't using the competition. You aren't making much money, but at the same time you're taking away potential revenue from the competition.
They're people who aren't willing to pay or watch ads: they'd generate no revenue for another service either. There's a limit to how much "data to improve services" one can use before running into diminishing returns.
Network effects are of course a possibility, but I don't know that viewers would follow other viewers to a new platform that directly. This is a two-sided marketplace so in principle you'd expect a feedback cycle: viewers go where the creators are, the creators go where the viewers are. Except here it's not the case that all viewers are equal. Some of them won't be generating any revenue for the creators. Why would the creators chase that audience?
Youtube seems to have a monopoly in the same way that Reddit does--it offers a product with network effect that you can't get anywhere else. However, most of what I use Youtube for is entertainment, same as Reddit. When Reddit turned to problematic, I had no problem not using it and switching to other forms of entertainment.
I absolutely will not watch advertisements. Am I unique in this regard? I consciously block out advertisements, mute them, and use every method available to block them.
You're not alone. Nobody wants to see this garbage. I install uBlock Origin on every browser I come across and people always comment on how the web has suddenly become much nicer. They know. Even when they can't explain why, they know.
I too mute my TV and pick up my phone when obnoxious ads start playing. Who wants to listen to this crap? Can you imagine TV companies pushing for technology that disables the mute, change channel and even on/off buttons while ads start playing? Magazines setting themselves on fire if you rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash?
If it seems like people are accepting of ads, it's really because they think it can't be helped. They think there's nothing they can do to prevent the unending flurry of corporate spam from grabbing their attention. If you show them a better world, I guarantee they'll like it.
I currently only have two brands I'm really boycotting over obnoxious ads (Samsung and head&shoulders btw) ('really' because I used to be a client), I guess my boycott list will only grow, as most video ads are obnoxious.
Agreed. I even stopped using Safari on Mac when uBlock stopped working way back in Catalina. Even though I had to get rid of Apple Pay and good battery life.
Same here. If uBlock Origin stops working, I might switch to downloading the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll just drop YouTube like I dropped Twitter when they screwed with Nitter.
Even their language is offensive. "Ad blockers are not allowed". Who are they to "allow" anything? It's my computer. They get exactly zero say in the matter. Their assumption of authority only ensured I will go out of my way to block the ads just to prove them wrong.
89 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 158 ms ] threadAm I super happy about paying for YouTube? No. Is it worth ~CAD$30/mo to not worry about ads anywhere, have background playback on mobile, and support the folks I watch? Absolutely.
Google is designing YouTube as a ad distribution platform, not as a media platform and it shows
I’d prefer they were both cheaper. That doesn’t prevent me from seeing the value they provide me.
finally, without something like sponsorblock you still end up with ads uploaded as part of the video.
I can't overstate how much I despise advertising.
Maybe I'd consider $3. Especially since even "ad free" videoes themselves now have lots of ads baked into them by the creators. Not a fan of the double dipping.
If you want to remove those embedded ads, SponsorBlock and DeArrow are great extensions to make YouTube more bearable!
Even if I believed a for-profit model were appropriate for the largest repository of the world's video content, I wouldn't want AlphaGoogle to be the company implementing that model.
I actually think this is irrational, because reason google is forcing thru anti-consumer features is _because_ they can't get enough revenue out of youtube!
If you're skeptical about how/if massive corporations are able to leverage their market power and monopolization to generate monstrous profits and force through very anti-consumer features, I'd encourage you to read Goliath from Matt Stoller: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Goliath/Matt-Stoller/...
Maybe.
YouTube should have to police copyright for the little guys as strongly as they do for the big guys. Instead, YouTube is happy to flat out steal content from little guys while stomping all over fair use when the big guys are involved.
I don't wish to support that. I want YouTube to go under so we can maybe get a video site that doesn't suck.
I'm skeptical they even consider YouTube premium a real option internally or if it's just there for potential regulators.
I also don't like the trend to blame adblock, Google is losing money now because there's an advertising scandal where they lied to customers, that's not adblocks fault.
$20 a month for unlimited, unrestricted access to literally millions of hours of high quality content is a really good deal. I regret having waited so long and wasted so much time waiting to click through ads.
It has YouTube premium and more, e.g. Sponsorblock, it's over all superior. And free.
However, I find the app's UX to be a little off-putting compared to the actual Youtube app.
YouTube takes a 45% cut. So out of that $30, YouTube pays a few cents for bandwidth, and takes $13.50 thanks to its dominant market position. I'd much rather watch with AdBlock and donate via Gumroad or Patreon.
Steam takes a 30% cut or something when I buy video games. I’m not about to start pirating games and mailing cheques to the developer.
I don’t assume that my YT Premium is paying for lavish meals for my favourite channels. But I watch lots of different channels, not all of which I’m going to sponsor on Patreon. They at least get something.
It's fantastic value for that price, but I would definitely think twice at 30 CAD/month.
1. I don’t trust Google at all and am very reluctant about giving them any personal information.
2. Even if I pay, I still get all the promotional crap that the content creators put in their videos.
Screw that mentality, not paying them. And I don't mind paying for a service btw - I have a premium Odysee for example.
If something goes wrong, you are just SOL. No recourse, nothing and nobody can really help you.
Availability, universally accepted, free (to the product: you), large storage, easy to use.
There is no serious competition, and I say this as a Hotmail user since well before Larry and Sergey opened their doors.
I have a vanity domain which MX's to Gmail so I can move it to another service _when_ they bumrush me, but I don't want to have that happen so I keep my account in good standimg.
Other than self-hosting or a paid service, do you have a suggestion for an alternative?
I know I'm not the OP, but I'm genuinely interested in this.
Maybe someday I will spin up my mailserver also, but for now this is quite good balance between convenience & price for me.
edit: To make it really clear, Odysee is not the only thing I'm paying for. I'm also paying for example for Apple Family, HBO GO, Spotify, mailhosting etc. I'm also sponsoring SponsorBlock extension. As I said: I don't have a problem with paying for a product or service. I have a big problem when someone deliberately and needlesly cripples a product just so they can sell you a solution to the (unnecessary) problem they artificially created. I mean: Background play behind a paywall? Really? Is that the bar that we think is acceptable these days?
I'm not a big fan of everything YouTube does either, but this stance of yours bothers me, too.
> I have a big problem when someone deliberately and needlesly cripples a product just so they can sell you a solution to the (unnecessary) problem they artificially created
The whole of YouTube is artificially created. It wouldn't be there without the people who run it, and they get to decide how they want to monetize. You can take it or leave it, or say "screw your rules, I'm using this anyway". Just realize that this is not necessarily read as some form of rebellion against the man or whatever, but instead as a neat excuse to help yourself to some free content.
The content on YouTube you're watching also would not exist without the people who create it. It would be nice if you gave back to at least some of them, somehow, in a way that's independent from YouTube. That would be a more interesting and constructive position to take.
(edited spelling)
This is why i prefer to force high-res in the first place, and have it buffer enough to play the entire video without stopping. Unfortunately, google considers this wasted bandwidth, or something...this option is not available unless you use browser mods to do it.
That is another thing, which I don’t mind (if I understand it right). Sometimes internet becomes worse temporarily and that approach is okay.
But in the described case it plays a whole video in this hypothetical “mode”, never trying to go up. My internet is not greatest, but when I switch from “720p (Auto)” to “720p” it takes only a couple of seconds to then play it without any further interruptions. It doesn’t add up. I believe they are simply saving traffic on those who look at the quality setting and either think “well, maybe it’s just shitty bitrate 720/1080p” or have no clue at all.
Part of that could be the bundled music subscription, which has zero value for me when I use and prefer Spotify, but it just seems like a very expensive niche product here which makes me surprised they’re pushing it so hard. They have a straight ad-free offering in some markets that seems much closer to something I’d actually pay for.
Lose the music stuff and charge A$9.99 a month and you’d have me.
Edit: I realised I was looking at the Apple subscription price at $19.99 for an individual rather than the online sign-up one. $14.99 still seems too high when my entire Amazon subscription with a video service and free-delivery is still roughly $10/mo.
I'd put the under/over at about 5 years from now.
There is no way youtube can win this battle using "brute force". The only way they can win this is by offering a new better service, not deteriorating existing ones. What could that new service be? How about recommendations that don't suck? I used to watch a lot of youtube on my TV from the main page. These days I only use a list of my subscribed channels and a search feature.
Also, if youtube gets really aggressive people will go elsewhere.
1. they own the browser (Chrome is the dominant browser) and with their "Web Integrity API" proposal they can do whatever they want. Also v3 doesn't help adblockers.
2. they own youtube and all the content. I've seen many youtube creators speak against adblocking, because no ads = no income for them. Most people can't create content at consistently high level without getting paid for their time or their team time. So Google and content producers both are better off without ad-blockers.
The web in 5 years sadly will lose most of the freedoms we take for granted, because nothing is "free" if it requires human time and resources. May be with crypto some pockets would emerge but large scale monopolies like Youtube with strong network effects wouldn't bulge.
It seems like you're saying that people are mainly using adblockers because the recommendations aren't good enough, and if the recommendations were improved they'd respond by turning off the adblock? That doesn't sound realistic. People use ad blockers because they don't like to watch ads, and since the adblockers let them avoid ads with no effort or cost. The site offering "better service" doesn't change that equation.
> Also, if youtube gets really aggressive people will go elsewhere.
Oh, no! The people who are not willing to pay for the service and who are blocking ads are going elsewhere! How can the platform and the creators possibly survive without that $0 in revenue?
The reality is that Google depends too much on its ads business and can't afford to spin their business model.
I can see how what I said could be understood this way, but that's not what I meant. Yes people use adblockers to block ads, but if there was a better recommendation mechanism one could pay for and that paid service also blocked ads people like myself might pay for it.
>Oh, no! The people who are not willing to pay for the service and who are blocking ads are going elsewhere! How can the platform and the creators possibly survive without that $0 in revenue?
The value of a person's attention is not zero, even if that person blocks ads. First if people use your service for free, they aren't using the competition. You aren't making much money, but at the same time you're taking away potential revenue from the competition.
Imagine all these people that use ad block would get up and go somewhere else? More people that watch ads would follow in short order.
Then there are other things these people do. Patron payments, even just popularising certain creators has value to these creators, finally simple engagement like comments etc have value that they create data that can be used to improve the service and so on.
Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding!
The problem I see with that idea is that whenever YouTube tries to differentiate Premium via features (e.g. background play, downloads, better video quality) people complain about that too. You can see an example of this as the top voted comments of this submission, about "[making] the original product so awful deliberately only so they can shove subscription down your throat".
> The value of a person's attention is not zero, even if that person blocks ads. First if people use your service for free, they aren't using the competition. You aren't making much money, but at the same time you're taking away potential revenue from the competition.
They're people who aren't willing to pay or watch ads: they'd generate no revenue for another service either. There's a limit to how much "data to improve services" one can use before running into diminishing returns.
Network effects are of course a possibility, but I don't know that viewers would follow other viewers to a new platform that directly. This is a two-sided marketplace so in principle you'd expect a feedback cycle: viewers go where the creators are, the creators go where the viewers are. Except here it's not the case that all viewers are equal. Some of them won't be generating any revenue for the creators. Why would the creators chase that audience?
I too mute my TV and pick up my phone when obnoxious ads start playing. Who wants to listen to this crap? Can you imagine TV companies pushing for technology that disables the mute, change channel and even on/off buttons while ads start playing? Magazines setting themselves on fire if you rip out the ad pages and throw them in the trash?
If it seems like people are accepting of ads, it's really because they think it can't be helped. They think there's nothing they can do to prevent the unending flurry of corporate spam from grabbing their attention. If you show them a better world, I guarantee they'll like it.