I don't know, I look at it almost exactly in the opposite way. I used to block Youtube ads with uBlock and now use Youtube Premium, and ads that are baked into videos by creators themselves don't bother me.
The ads that are baked into the video don't have tracking code because they're just part of the video file, they aren't an extra javascript burden, often the sound/transition is far better and not so jarring-- really they're IMHO the least "bad" form of ads- better than the alternatives in almost every way- and often these ads are more relevant to the content and probably support the creator well.
I would much rather have a creator do sponsor spots in their video content than ever get served a javascript ad from some ad company.
How does blocking such an in-video ad hurt the creator? If there's no JavaScript, there's presumably no way of tracking "views", right?
It seems like the only harm is that I won't see/click the ad. But I think anyone who runs an ad-blocker is already the sort of person who won't click ads. Even if someone advertises something I'm super excited by, I'll want to take a few days to research the product - and I'm not going to go dig up the sponsored link when I decide to buy in.
I'm not actually saying that I agree that it hurts the creator, just listing the reasons that I don't bother blocking them. I am not necessarily against the idea of sponsorblock- I hate all advertising in general (and even despite this I still fall for ads I do see and check products out...maybe that makes me hate them even more) it's just that in-video ads are the kind of ads I am least inclined to go out of my way to remove or skip.
And, I can't tell you what the difference is- it seems it would be the same- but sponsor spots in audio-only podcasts bother me more than ones in videos. Maybe it's the length. The majority of the content I watch keeps sponsor stuff short- but the podcasts I listen to make a 5-10 minute infomercial out of them, so I do skip them more often in podcasts
As far as whether I think there's any harm to creators from skipping sponsored spots, it's possible that whatever statistics/analysis creators have access to on the platform might inform what they're able to tell their sponsors as far as views/etc. - but I don't know to what extent that goes
I think that's ideal, but will never happen, because aside from creators making money, YouTube wants to make money, and they won't make anything on ads built into the video
The ads that are baked into the video don't have tracking code because they're just part of the video file, they aren't an extra javascript burden, often the sound/transition is far better and not so jarring-- really they're IMHO the least "bad" form of ads- better than the alternatives in almost every way- and often these ads are more relevant to the content and probably support the creator well.
I would much rather have a creator do sponsor spots in their video content than ever get served a javascript ad from some ad company.