Whoever asked that question truly is an idiot and bastard.

Well then you should just stay of these sites.

I really hope that one you will have a job where don´t get paid for months. 

Seriously though, I wouldn't accept a job where I shove annoying crap in people's faces.

The onus is on advertisers to do their job effectively. If overly-aggressive ads are losing them views, that's their fault.

It is akin to losing money for poor work.

The fact that they are losing views because of the overly-agressive ads isn't really the problem, it's how they are losing them.  I don't think anyone has a problem with the free market idea that if you don't like what payment you're required to give for a service you can choose a different one.  So if you don't like the advertisements on a site you can just go to a different one.  What I don't agree with is you don't like the ads on a site so you just dcide to not see the ads but use the site's content anyway.  If you don't agree with how much money a grocery store is charging for an apple then you can go to a different grocery store, but you can't just decide it's not worth that much money and take the apple without paying.  Sure, you never signed a contract saying you'd view ads in order to get a site's content, but you never signed anything with the grocery store either.    

As far as I know people use Adblock not because they want to steal people's revenue but because there are a lot of ads which are malicious and intrusive. No one can force ad creators to change how they make their ads but websites could set better standards on which ads they allow on their site.

The question from the video sounds like it was written by a cocky douche or a troll to get a response out of Patcher, but Pach's response was also unreasonable.

No you can't, you pay for it the amount that's asked or you don't get it.  Anything other than that is stealing.  You can't barter for things without the other person's involvement.  

What you're saying is that you've concluded that the bulk of the content you use on the internet should be free and therefore you feel right in using it for free, but that's not how you're supposed to vote with your dollars.  The creator decides what they think is a fair price and then you can either have the thing for the price the manufacturer is asking of you or you can choose not to pay that and not have it.  Eventually the market will then fluctuate to a point that the bulk of consumers find the price reasonable.  Deciding that something should be free and taking that into your own hands is simply stealing.  

Those in favor of things like adblock liken it to changing channels from commercials on your TV, but I think it's more accurately compared using a cable splitter on your neighbor's cable.  

Dat image though........

I would say most people who offer donations in place of ad revenue tend to not do very well.  And, depending on the service, giving incentive to donations could cause a power imbalance.  The system isn't as much broken as it is the people who use the services.  Donations are almost never enough because, given the option, most people don't.

Attention seeking annoying old man, agreeing with his points but damn listening to his tirade of insults made me cringe. It's like that gametrailers dude annoying gamer or something when he started shitting on Phil Fish. If you have someone to criticize, do it in a civil way for your listeners' sake, no one cares how you personally feel about the person.