Similar to what happened to web ads in communities that tend to run adblockers: more and more obnoxious advertising (intersitial ads, animated ads, etc.), advertising incorporated into content (ads-as-content like on Reddit), cross-site tracking and retargeting.
I tend to manually skip sponsored segments (especially for snake oil like VPN services!), but I'm not sure if writing automated software for this is the right thing to do in the long term.
Is it bad to be skipping a sponsor segment because you've seen it dozens of times? Is it bad if you're already a happy user of the advertised product? Etc.
I figure that $1 a month on Patreon is worth hundreds of times more to a creator than the ad revenue I'm depriving them of, and buying any merch probably thousands of times.
This isn't always true. As several sibling comments already mentioned, this "native advertising" of embedded sponsor spot via the Youtube personality as spokesperson -- is often "paid based on performance" which means the affiliate url links mentioned in the ad are measured for clicks resulting in new customers.
I'm not commenting on morals of using a plugin but just correcting a misconception about arrangements of payment for content creators.
OECD per-capita spend on all publishing runs about $100/person, roughly the same as per-capita ads spend within the same countries, itself a tax of sorts.
A natural gateway exists --- not a perfect one, but good enough at the level of the ISP provider.
Aggregation, not disintegrations, is the general trend in payment systems. Both buyers and sellers benefit from predictable flows, income or revenues.
Regionally-pro-rated payments allocate costs according to ability to pay, which for information goods is a net social benefit.
Rolling an information access fee into fixed line and mobile internet service, with an indexing of content accessed and a tier-and-bid based reimbursement schedule for publishers, seems to me the most viable path forward to something vaguely resembling a content tax, without actually going through a content tax mechanism. It would ensure universal access to readers and the public, compensation for creators, and the ability for those actually engaged in the process of creating new works to access the materials they need, legally and lawfully, answering in part the "why should I pay for information I don't use" objection: the inforation you do use is itself predicated on information you don't access directly yourself. The other answer to this rather tired objection is that you live in the world created by information access or denial of access, and in general, access to high-quality, relevant, useful information should be a net positive.
I'd proposed this years ago (and many others have similar suggestions), though noting ISPs as a logical collection tollgate is a new realisation.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...
No, the role of "content creator paid by impression and dependent on people not being able to skip intrusive segments of videos that they watch" has no intrinsic right or need to exist. There are lots of other ways for civilization to develop.