For every person using an ad blocker there's 10,000 that don't. Going after the fraction of a percent of perceived lost revenue from people who wouldn't click your ads or buy your products anyway is just the epitome of greed.

Are ads cheaper now? I imagine with combined slots of ads, their duration, size on the screen they aren't as expensive as they were and letting their clients get more for the same price. Compare one textual block from early android's free apps to fullscreen video ads being a norm, same with youtube, chains of long videos. It seems they caused the deterioration of their own market. I imagine what actual statistics of clicks-per-show look like if they are so desperate. We sometimes hear of how premium superbowl or olympics ads are, and here it feels the exclusivity of access to consumer isn't valued. You buy a slot, but your ad is sandwiched between other random products. How is that exclusive? Businesses would get used to it, but their incencitive isn't there. If they pay big bucks, they want to buy a billboard, not a small string in a tabloid.

As other person have said, users with blocks are a minority. But, what's important, bashing them is a reputational thing. Google's advertising and data-farming business. This gesture is good to promote at the board meating, to their regulars, and maybe charge a bit more. Also important that these blockers kill tracking devices like invisible pixels, so it may be a bigger reason to implement that than some loss of ad revenue.

If YouTube Premium was cheaper I'd get it with no complaints. Except they just raised the price too, so they're lighting both ends of the match and facing the consequences of their greed