The definition of "customers" has shifted in the ad-supported tech world. There's nothing inherently wrong with that model when it's unobtrusive and useful ads; It's when they get overly aggressive with the advertising that it drives people to block, IMO.
Also there's a pattern in the industry of introducing ads (or "promotions" to get around legalese) to "ad-free" subscriptions once they have sufficient lock-in.
My point is simply that Google is providing something which costs money to produce. They offer two ways to pay for it but someone who rejects both of them has no reason to expect Google to subsidize their activity β itβs like whining that the concert hall closed the window you used to camp out at for free music.
Customer is generally whoever is giving you money. With YouTube ads it's advertiser with the viewer being a second customer as the viewer gives YouTube the attention/click through. That falls apart if the user refuses to engage in that transaction
Also there's a pattern in the industry of introducing ads (or "promotions" to get around legalese) to "ad-free" subscriptions once they have sufficient lock-in.