By this kind of hypothetical assumption, you shouldn't pay for anything, as the other party might change the terms in future, or in your parlance, "pull a switcheroo"

Yes, exactly. Brand loyalty is a thing.

You are free to go to rumble and rot your brain

No one is forcing you to use YouTube. Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing. As long as you agree to the terms, you can do whatever you want.

I can only pity the people who don't find YouTube a valuable source of information/wisdom and use emotions/irrationality to drive decisions, while making sub-optimal financial decisions in every part of their life

it might work for you, but most people don't win from pretending that not watching ads is 'stealing' and are not going to go along with it lol

illegally? is Google going to take us to court by blocking the ads? please mind the use of the word

If it is wisdom you seek, you're gonna have to close your laptop my friend!

Why is it unethical to do things just because a megacorp wrote a one-sided "agreement" not to?

Wow, if you are White/American how will it feel if I use the same argument to rob from you?

In fact that is the exact line of reasoning used by Indian Call Scammers when they steal from Americans. Thanks for telling me you are cut from the same piece of cloth

If you wanted a contract, they'd honor it for the term of the contract but you'd have to pay for that up front but statistically nobody online likes to pay for content so the ad-funded model is pervasive. The ethical choices are either to accept the service as offered or watch something which is offered under terms you find more acceptable.

Why are those the only ethical choices? What ethical framework are you assuming?

Because there are two parties involved and those are the options which have mutual agreement.

> Illegally circumventing the Terms of Service is unethical/stealing.

That seems like a difficult argument to make because laws don't always align with ethics. Given the myriad of replies around this topic, it seems like opinions on the ethics of violating the ToS are mixed. It gets even more complicated when you consider that very few people have the time/skills to read/interpret such a complex and lengthy ToS. At what point is a company not morally complicit for taking advantage of the layman's inability to understand such a legal document? It doesn't help that the UI/UX seems to deliberately provide incentive for users to blindly accept.

> No one is forcing you to use YouTube.

Doubt it. Ever been required to watch a video for a class?

There are limits to terms of service. Where does it end? Is it unethical to mute and switch to another tab to wait out the ad? How about simply looking away? Regardless of what the terms of service says I have the ultimate control of what I decide to take in. Adblocking is a way to assert that right to selectively let in stuff into my sphere of perception.

youtube premium isn't a contract that punishes cancelling. If you don't like the service stop subscribing.