> ”because of an obscure clause that no one has ever read, which was created for this very purpose.”

I don’t like that OP was locked out of his email.

But besides that, it’s not as if he broke some obscure TOS clause. He actively subverted the company’s revenue model to take its product for free. That’s about as obvious as it gets that you’re risking being blocked from a service.

> He used specialized software to subvert the company’s revenue model and take its product for free.

How is this different than using an ad blocker in the browser?

Google linked the usage of New Pipe with the Google Account (despite the person not being logued into their account in New Pipe) and blocked it from all Google services.

Imagine you using adblock in the CNN website without being logged in and they block your access to all Time Warner services (for example HBO).

That sounds like it could only be a good thing, to help you free yourself from the intellectual pablum and misleading narratives they produce. I for one encourage these companies to ban all of us from everything, the sooner the better, so we can be effectively galvanized into making real alternatives instead of the Tivoized bullshit Android has become.

Legally? It isn't really. (Your question was rhetorical, wasn't it?) Sure, maybe courts could separate these two issues on other grounds (such as using a side-channel for banning people based on the mere existence of an ad-blocker versus detecting the exact instance of blocking the ad from showing/playing somehow) - but from the point of the ToS, it's a clear deal. You get to access to YT but you have to watch ads. No ads, no YT.

That said, fuck that. It's not like people haven't been subverting ads for ages. (From the simple pause recording when the ad starts, rewind just a tad bit and resume-recording when the movie continues to Pi-Hole and Blockada on Android.)

pretty sure even with my adblocker, I still see the "watch 5 seconds and skip ad" ads. May've configured it that way, not sure, been a while.

But to your question, if the ad blocker is subverting the company's revenue model and they can detect it, you risk the company blocking you. Per the Issue, it looks like the service that is there to scan for bad actors on your device may've picked up that NewPipe was installed on their device which may've caused them to look (speculation on all counts).

Yeah, something with your config. I don't see those using uBlock Origin.

I got the impression the GP is describing precisely that.

NewPipe is a video downloader, different from an adblocker.

TIL.

Would that mean that using progs like `youtube-dl` to fetch videos from Youtube may get your Goog Account deleted?

I don't think you even can login with youtube-dl.

You can. That's how you can download private videos

It does seem similar. If you don't want to see the ads, don't use the service.

I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube. Technically, I quit Netflix once they started showing me ads, even though they were for their own shows (general dark patterns were the more significant factor though).

Where do you draw that line though? If I take steps to ignore/block ads that don't involve software -- like muting during ads or flipping the phone over -- am I subverting the company's revenue model? How much do I need to "see" ads?

A very good question. Muting a TV seems OK on the surface to me, but only because it is normal to me. When actually thinking about it, I realize that muting TV ads is similar to web ad blocking.

So in principle I would have to say that one shouldn't mute TV ads, or skip them using +10 second buttons. Of course I will not always live my life up to that principle...

Right. It's like the slow march towards the future from the fifteen million merits episode of black mirror.

> It does seem similar. If you don't want to see the ads, don't use the service.

That just doesn't make sense. Not using their services has zero advantages compared to blocking ads. But by using them, you raise their costs, making their business model less viable.

> I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube.

By paying for services, you show that you have disposable income. You cannot escape ads that way except in the short term.

Now should I be worried about using YouTube vanced app. Same thing there to isn't it?

You don't get it.

And given that emails are akin to a home address these days, you can be locked out of your entire life. Google can wipe a person off the map. Bank accounts, health care, billing, everything is tied to email accounts and phones tied to google accounts.

"Show me the man and I’ll show you the TOS Violation"

Google isn't nearly old enough to have the vast web of cross-contradictory regulations that a government does. I sincerely doubt most users even interface with it enough to risk violating the TOS.

Well, if you accept TFA, all it can take is blocking ads that Google really wants to show you.

Not everyone does that. I don't. ;)

I hope I will never have to go to a country that is so badly run that a private, non-democratic company without any rule of law and a customer "support" bureaucracy that could be greatly improved by making it kafkaesque looks good in comparison.

I see this meme a lot on the internet, especially when the US political justice system comes up lately, and it shows just how little our generation and younger care about how government works, is intended to work, and what to do when it doesn't work, the latter point being the most important. Going to social media and complaining, for example, is a good example of what not to do.

The control is only authoritarian if those being controlled by it have no recourse. As applied to governments, authoritarianism has strong central power and limited political freedoms. In the US, we believe in the principles of limited central power, and many political freedoms. (Whether or not this is the situation depending on who you are is the topic of another day because this is how it should be, and the only way it may have become not that is if we have allowed our complacencies to kick in and allow it to happen. I am a firm believer in the concept of "people get the government they deserve in a democracy." ) Ultimately the governmental authoritarian control is beholden to the people and can be eradicated. The only reason we feel as if it can't be is because we have allowed the power to creep up over the years and it seems like an insurmountable mountain, but rest assured if you pick up that pick axe and start chipping away rock by rock you absolutely can tear it down.

Likewise, authoritarianism applied to a corporation implies strong central power, and limited consumer freedoms. This is also patently false in the US. The US has anti-trust laws to prevent centralized control, consumer protection agencies, and the free market. The consumer ultimately always has the freedom to choose another option. If the corporation loses too many consumers, then the corporation goes under. I understand there is a lot of nuance, but this is the basic principles of how things should operate in this country, and the mechanisms for things to operate are in fact there. The question then becomes what are it's people doing about it?

> the only way it may have become not that is if we have allowed our complacencies to kick in

Just wanted to observe that this belief presupposes the US ever lived up to the principles you outline. US history shows that the country has never quite lived up to its touted values.

> The US has anti-trust laws to prevent centralized control, consumer protection agencies, and the free market. The consumer ultimately always has the freedom to choose another option.

You had me going until this, nice satire

Hey dude, it looks like you're shadowbanned from HN. Just thought you should know.

show me a successful peaceful revolution anywhere in world ever in the history of the world.

Every time there is a change of party in a modern government.

It is so commonplace that we miss it, but one ruling organization steps down and another, often with opposing views, steps up.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

Thank you

Women basically asked for the right to vote, and got it.

Danish constitution

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Denmark

(Though it probably helped that the French Revolution had happened before ;))

Those are called "election". The entire idea of an electoral democracy is that you have them once in a while, so the government stays aligned with the public wishes.