> And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.
Why? You haven't yet explained what's bad about it.
> Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.
Blindly attacking Google, however, is very hip these days.
No, they simply don't. At best you are using circular logic. At worst you don't explain anything.
Again: Forcing content creators into this, is the only sensible option. It's the user-friendliest too, because why the fuck would I pay for an ads-free subscription service, if I then have to watch ads? So, as it's friendly to the users (i.e. the non-content-creators), the only way forcing content creators into the deal could be construed as not user friendly is if it would have any negative effect on content creators.
What is this negative effect? Because I simply can't see any. Why would any content creator be against signing this deal, what are the specific reasons? And your answer can neither be "because it's bad for the users" (it isn't), nor "because they are forcing me to do it". Because that's only sensible and also what every business does all the time, including the place where you shop for groceries. Terms and conditions change and if you don't accept the changes your contract becomes void and you are no longer able to use a service. Any service that ever changes their rules.
Why? You haven't yet explained what's bad about it.
> Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.
Blindly attacking Google, however, is very hip these days.