I think there's some truth to that, but in my admittedly "outside-looking-in" experience, most full-time content creators have other means of raising money to operate: Patreon, merchandise, Twitch subscriptions, YT Membership, video sponsorships, etc. So I don't think the total loss of advertising would lead to the total loss of content creators. You'd lose some, but others would survive. People like making content even when there's no profit motive at all, it's just less feasible to do it at an industrial scale if you don't have more solid financial banking.
Consider Twitch subscriptions. You pay $5 to a streamer, you never see ads on their stream. No ads doesn't mean no streamer. Likewise, streamer still streams even if you don't subscribe, you just see the ads. As a business model, this is a little neater, tidier, than Google's. On a technical level, it's also better defended against adblockers since ads are injected into the stream, they're not a separate stream you can just block.
Yes they "need" to stop adblock, but for the advertisers, not for the content creators.
I think for a while, their strategy to ignore adblockers worked just fine. User counts were rising, ad payouts could be and would be cut, ads could be and would be placed in different parts of the video, videos that weren't monetized were getting ads thrown in just to make Youtube/Google/Adsense money. YT was pulling lots of levers to keep the value of advertising on the platform high.
That is, until Adpocalypse. My theory is, after this point, advertisers began to question how many more levers could be pulled until they addressed the elephant in the room, an elephant that was getting larger and larger: the adblockers. Let's be fair to Google (ugh), it would be much much easier to pull all those levers, than to tackle the technical challenge of stopping client-side software from running on their website. Once interest rates rose, and advertiser pressure reached it's current peak, Google started taking anti-adblocker actions: Manifest V3 to kill ublock on Chrome, Youtube's current system, etc.
They need people who won’t watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs.
This assumes that the biggest cost to Youtube is serving the content, not storing the content. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's a valid question because if storage is the larger cost, then it doesn't matter how many visitors visit the site, Youtube is still warehousing all that content. By the way, in that scenario, it's actually better for Youtube to keep as many viewers on the site as possible, adblockers or not, because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.
Even when they seize the opportunity to poach nearly half of their competitor, they still think they gotta prop up an office instead of letting them work from home. Hilarious.
Russia was moving Ukrainian children into Russia, that's a component of genocide. German Jews were forced into ghettos, then into concentration camps. The ghettos didn't "prevent" genocide, they facilitated it.
The United Nations first defined genocide in 1948 in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The treaty outlines five acts that can constitute genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group”:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
They both serve the purpose of erasing the identity of a people. The methods and means are common between the two: you destroy their homes, you force them to move, you starve them, you kill the ones who don't comply, and you leave the weak and struggling to die. The distinction you're making matters in a UN court, where Genocide has a legal definition and legal consequences, whereas Ethnic Cleansing does not. But that doesn't make ethnic cleansing some preferable alternative to genocide.
If you told a civilian in Gaza "you're not being genocided, you're being ethnically cleansed!" Do you think that would change their understanding of the situation much?
Unless you're No Man's Sky? Or Cyberpunk? Like games have been getting patches and updates for a long time, sometimes they get better, sometimes they get worse. Maybe he means your reputation as a developer and as a publisher is forever tarnished no matter how well you patch up the game post-launch.
In the days of Half Life 1? Yeah, it wasn't really feasible to patch games after they got printed on discs and left the warehouse.
It's not the worst idea. Tons of software goes through "closed betas," or "canary builds," or invite-only phases like this to test at scale, in a production-like scenario, but without opening the floodgates and getting inundated with issues reported by regular people. Heck even Fediverse websites sometimes close their registration pages if they're getting more signups than the admins/mods can handle. And that makes perfect sense, the last thing you want is to suddenly become unsustainably huge. It leads to a kind of social rot: trolls run free without enough mods to stop them, spammers run rampant, etc.
I was there at the beginning when kotakuinaction sprung up, when the accusations of pay for reviews was levied, and then consequently when the right wing found it and co-opted it.
If GG was devoid of misogyny, devoid of hate, and based entirely in fact and reality, then the right wing wouldn't have bothered with the effort necessary to co-opt it. Those ingredients weren't added to an otherwise unblemished movement, they were prerequisites for the Alt Right to coalesce around it. I was also in /r/kotakuinaction and /v/ in 2014, it wasn't "found" by right wingers, it was founded by right wingers, or at the very least they were the earliest possible arrivals and immediately began moving in furniture.
You don't have to take my word for it: this post was made within a month of KIA's founding. All the "it's about games journalism" talk was a smokescreen to lure people in. You and I may have bounced off, but that's just part of the natural self-selection process, i.e. Nigerian Prince scammers deliberately make typos in their emails to filter out the people who don't make easy Marks.
Conservatives are masters of manipulating "righteous" indignation, and KIA was the definition of a Target-Rich Environment. One they basically created.
Your 1-sentence answer to understanding Gamergate has less to do with any of the people involved or a timeline of events. Gamergate, more than anything else, was an opportunity. A springboard to indoctrinate people into far right politics by playing to people's fear of the Other, mistrust in media, and stoking anger at a perceived scandal.
If it never happened, if it wasn't video games, it would just as well be something else. It would be music or sports or anything that people are passionate about. Right wingers were running out of steam with the Tea Party, and Gamergate was in the right place at the right time.
EDIT: Some contemporary discussion on GG actually, prophetically, supports this:
As someone on another forum said, the GG movement is primed to be the next young Republican demographic, and all of the pieces have been put into place to subvert the Authoritarian revolt into a rabid conservative base. So next year when all of the GGers (who remain) go from moderate liberals to Tea Party advocates, you can say you were at ground zero.
That got me thinking about my Q/MAGA following father and how both being indoctrinated into Tea Party politics as a teenage boy on top of Evangelical Christianity as well as being sucked into Gamergate and Sargon of Akkad's whole "classical liberalism" grift for a while. I see a lot of that same outrage and ingroup-outgroup clashing being taken advantage of by Q and MAGA.
I think there's some truth to that, but in my admittedly "outside-looking-in" experience, most full-time content creators have other means of raising money to operate: Patreon, merchandise, Twitch subscriptions, YT Membership, video sponsorships, etc. So I don't think the total loss of advertising would lead to the total loss of content creators. You'd lose some, but others would survive. People like making content even when there's no profit motive at all, it's just less feasible to do it at an industrial scale if you don't have more solid financial banking.
Consider Twitch subscriptions. You pay $5 to a streamer, you never see ads on their stream. No ads doesn't mean no streamer. Likewise, streamer still streams even if you don't subscribe, you just see the ads. As a business model, this is a little neater, tidier, than Google's. On a technical level, it's also better defended against adblockers since ads are injected into the stream, they're not a separate stream you can just block.
Yes they "need" to stop adblock, but for the advertisers, not for the content creators.