To the larger discussion brewing: I honestly don't understand all the pushback on here. Why should I have any type of moral imperative to support revenue streams I find bad for the industry/society/brains? Simply because the creator decided it was the right choice? People decide things I disagree with all the time, if I have I the power to choose differently, I do. Not liking that I reversed a video creator's choice is one thing, but the accusations of theft (or general moral failings) are another.
Truthfully, if I had the power to make baked-in adverts unprofitable for all Youtube/podcasts/whatever, I would. If anything, I feel some obligation to keep ads out of as many spaces as I can. There are lots of way to make money, selling viewer's eyeballs/ears to the ad industry doesn't have to be the default one and shouldn't be protected like some deep creative choice.
Of course, I want my favorite creator to make money; people have to eat. Alternative sources, such as asking for patroonships or donations, I'm amenable to. I even support a couple smaller channels I think make special content. Unlike baked-in ads, donations are non-compulsory and in my control.
At a more base level, you don't get my eyeballs without my computer, internet, etc. I have a stake in viewership and I choose to modulate what is in my control. If that modulation offends the creator, they do not have to allow it and I will stop watching, but that (currently) means taking their content off mainstream (vs premium) YouTube and lowering viewership. I generally pay for content, but even if I didn't, I can't imagine going out of my way to pirate videos of people fixing old C64s (something I genuinely enjoy).
Morality is complicated.