> YouTube, streaming services, etc. provide you a service in exchange for you also allowing ads to be loaded on your computer.

Users don't 'allow' anything: YouTube send data, the owner of the receiving device can choose what to do with that data (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.).

YouTube's business model is to bet that adspace included alongside videos can be sold for a profit. The price they can charge for that adspace depends on market conditions, which includes factors like the prevalence of adblocking. Blocking ads is not 'stealing', in the same way that using coupons isn't 'stealing'.

> YouTube has every right to try to punish this behavior or stop providing their service to you - such as by blocking ads, or even by deleting your account.

Obviously. That's why it's never 'your' account; it's owned by them, they can do what they want (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.).

> YouTube, streaming services, etc. provide you a service in exchange for you also allowing ads to be loaded on your computer.

I don't remember signing a contract with YouTube. They send my browser a list of "things" and their URLs required to render a page and, as my agent, my browser can freely load or ignore them.

> You are not allowed to:

> access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;

> circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

Tell me where this shows up in the process of watching a YouTube video. On a fresh device I can navigate to their page, select a video, and watch it. Never in that chain of events is this agreed upon.

> Your use of the Service is subject to these terms, the YouTube Community Guidelines and the Policy, Safety and Copyright Policies which may be updated from time to time (together, this "Agreement").

> Please read this Agreement carefully and make sure you understand it.

> If you do not understand the Agreement, or do not accept any part of it, then you may not use the Service.

Even if it's not binding, it illustrates what Google intends to do (stop providing the service via an anti-adblocker script) if you do not follow their TOS.

> it illustrates what Google intends to do (stop providing the service via an anti-adblocker script) if you do not follow their TOS.

Yes. They have complete discretion over what 'list of "things" and their URLs required to render a page' they decide to send any particular user agent (modulo copyright infringement, hate speech laws, etc.). There is no requirement that HTTP connections to 'youtube.com' should receive video data; or even HTML; or even that anything's listening on that port.

Cool story, illegal in my country. Also, the popup is blocked, so I don't even get to agree to it or not.

It doesn't matter what Google intends to do. Only what I do in response. TOS are not legally binding, they're a bunch of crap.

I wonder if the reverse would also work. If my browser's source code included a "TOS" that "by uploading content to and executing code on my machine you give me a permanent and irrevocable right to view/read the content using any software of my choosing" would that bind Google as well? Wouldn't that illustrate my intent in accessing Google's services just as a EULA I never get to read illustrates theirs?

Right. If they get to push a TOS on me, I get to push one on them.

I want Google to pay my rent for the next decade, and Sundar has to offer a naked lapdance at the Pink Poodle every time they send me an ad I did not explicitly request to be shown.

So if I can't read, but I watch YouTube videos, am I agreeing to a contract?

Contracts are only valid if signed.

From some Tor exit nodes (not all!), YouTube does present a modal to make you agree to the ToS before you are allowed to interact with the page. Probably some localities actually legally require you to do this, and so Alphabet complies.

They can wave that EULA around all they want but I'm not going to sign it. And even if I signed it, I wouldn't honor it. Why should I play fair with corporations, particularly corporations the likes of google?

That would appear to be describing attempting to hijack or interfere with the YouTube servers. Someone instructing a program on their computer to do something other than what the operators of the Service thought it would do has no bearing on the Service's ability to continue operating or on the availability of the Content.

I have a right to determine what is displayed on my own devices.

And they don't have to serve you content.

They don't have to, but they do. Let them stop, because I won't.

The upside if they stop is, they’ll stop for our entire class of people. The reason we watch Youtube is that our entire generation watches it instead of doing something else.

If an entire class of people were drawn to something else, such as watching Nebula or going to coffee shops, both would be more interesting than they are now.

Exactly this. Why do so many people feel entitled to free stuff at the operator's expense? It boggles the mind.

Why do so many people feel entitled to tell me how to use my computer? If they choose not to serve their webpages to me, that's fine. To be realistic, I probably won't even notice their attempt because my adblocker will already have updated to bypass their silly attempt.

But yes, it is their right to try. Just as it is my right to install & use an adblocker.

I'm sure there are some people out there who feel such entitlement. I haven't seen anyone claiming such entitlement here though.

Personally, I agree with the 'my device, my rules' comment. If YouTube want to (try to) block me, they can go ahead. They're under no obligation to serve me video content even if I didn't block ads, so it makes little difference.

YouTube is a vertically integrated monopolist in the video space. There is no where else I can go to consume the majority of content they host.

Why would any regular person empathize with the criminals in the commission of their crimes?

That is fine. They don't have to. I'll just go somewhere else.

It's sad to see this sort of thing on HN. A web browser is a user agent that operates on behalf of the user. Let's say it again for emphasis: the web browser serves the user, not the site owner. The user is free to manipulate the received web page however they see fit. If the site operator wants to get paid, they can put the service behind a login paywall, or else they can go pound sand. There has never, ever been an obligation for users to respect the wishes of site owners; once it is off your server and on my machine, it is my data to do with as I see fit, including blocking whatever ads the data happens to contain.

> If the site operator doesn't like it, they can put the service behind a paywall or they can go pound sand.

see: > YouTube has every right to try to punish this behavior or stop providing their service to you - such as by blocking ads, or even by deleting your account.

That doesn't absolve the first sentence that attempts to frame adblocking as theft. This is playing into the propaganda from companies like Google that are attempting to ahistorically distort the social contract by asserting that they control the content that is displayed on my screen, which is not how the web works or has ever worked. It's not "stealing", "freeloading", "privateering", it's a public resource that companies have imposed themselves upon and are now attempting to assert ownership of.

On the other hand, many ads are deceptive, which is also a form of theft. If ads were honest, they wouldn't be effective.

And ad blocking is self defense.

You are inherently freeloading off of everyone that does pay for Premium or watches ads.

I didn't say that doing is is immoral, or that we should collectively feel ashamed, just that it is inherently <not paying> for YouTube, and that YT has every right to try to stop this behavior - of course, balancing kicking people off the platform with any ground they lose to competing UGC streaming services.

> You are inherently freeloading off of everyone that does pay for Premium or watches ads.

You seem to be assuming that watching ads would reduce the number of them, or reduce the price of Premium. All evidence is to the contrary (e.g. the presence of ads on pay-for TV, like cable)

It wouldn't reduce the rate of ads or price of premium, but if everyone ran an ad blocker and didn't pay for Premium, YouTube would either shut down or make the uploaders pay per watch or per GB served, perhaps, leading to a worse experience.

Would that lead to a worse experience? It would certainly cut down on spammy, AI generated content. I already fund many of the creators I watch through Patreon or other means so I suspect it wouldn't change much for me.

Yeah, my 9-year-old grandson could not upload his hillarious videos about dinosaurs anymore. Please explain to him that he can open some Patreon to support his Youtube fees instead.

I doubt it. The data they collect alone is worth more than the storage and server costs.

> You are inherently freeloading off of everyone that does pay for Premium or watches ads.

So what if I am?

It's not freeloading when the alternative is psychological damage.

An alternative is to pay the subscription fee.

The alternatives are stop watching the content or pay for it. If you chose the ad-supported version then that's on you.

If not consuming the content exactly as provided is "freeloading", then I guess I'm freeloading when I fast forward past ads on my DVR too.

Do you do that? I hope you're consistent with your principles and watch every ad.

I find that there are often useful ads which inform me about niche products or services that I would not otherwise have known about.

It’s a fine line.

A lot of ads are just shit though.

I have never seen an ad that was more valuable to me than when I go out looking for a product or service to solve a problem or ask a friend for advice. The shotgun affect of push advertising makes even those theoretically "useful" ads negative value, because they have to compete for my brain and attention with all the other ads, meaning they have to be just as optimized for manipulation.

Is it stealing if you watch the ad but close your eyes and plug your ears?

Why does Google want to charge advertisers to show ads to someone so determined to ignore them? If anything, if they force me to watch their ads and I ignore them, then Google is the one stealing from the advertisers.

I'm not going to buy an advertiser's product regardless of whether or not I'm forced to see its advertisement, and any counterargument to that must be built on the premise that advertisements can nonconsensually convince me to take action, in which case we're back to the beginning arguing about psychological warfare, where I certainly have a right to defend myself.

I realized a truism years ago: Anytime there are 3 or more parties involved in a business deal, at least one of them is getting fucked. And it's usually the least powerful party, which 99% of the time is just the ordinary user/consumer/taxpayer. However, not always. And sometimes it's two parties getting screwed. This happens a lot with government contracts. Where the people paid for it, the government got garbage, and the contractor(s) got rich.

Here's is the quintessential example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5... We paid $400 billion dollars to entrenched ISPs and got absolutely nothing for it.

And advertising is almost always a 3 party business deal. The merchant. The advertiser. The unwitting public. Sometimes the merchant gets screwed. Sometimes it's the advertiser. But almost always the target audience.

So when it comes to adblocking, I have zero sympathy for the advertiser or the merchant. I want zero advertisements in my life. But I get them anyway.

Online advertising is even more fun than that: There's the merchant/website, the advertiser, the ad network, and the public. You can even add the advertiser's competitors! The public gets ads they don't want, the merchant can fake some of their traffic, or maybe it's the advertiser's competitors. The ad network is ultimately not all that interested in giving the advertiser that great a deal, or even if they are, they might still lose to those trying to steal ad revenue. You then see a company that was trying to sell ads to sports fans in indiana, that see that all their budget really went to ads placed in front of a bot farm from Philippines. I know of a failed alcohol startup who, after analysis, saw that 40% of their youtube marketing budget ended up attached to channels playing Peppa Pig.

So sure, adblock away, but don't think that the consumer is the sole loser in the ads race: It's far worse than that.

Yeah, in advertising there's supply side and demand side. So even more parties can get screwed!

You really do not want to use those kind of words around places with value added tax. The law basically says that if a person or company is providing a service in exchange for money, goods or services, the seller will have to pay value added tax on that exchange.

The way that advertisements in the past has managed to avoid paying this tax is that the service or product is given away for free along side the advertisement. Since it is not an exchange of services, and the product is being giving away for free with no expectation of any money, goods or services, there is no tax to be applied.

I'll pay for youtube the minute they pay their fair share of tax.