I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming.
It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.
For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "rights"?
https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...
In general? Of course not.
On a webpage they serve to you? Of course they have the right to, to the extent JavaScript makes it possible. What possible legal basis could there be for them not to have that right? With limited exceptions, they have the right to do wherever they want with their webpage code. And there is no legal exception against blocking adblockers.
I don't see how they could, I can always look away. In that case, what is the effective difference between that and ad blockers that control what code/images run/display on my computer?
The are not "giving things away": they have terms of service. The agreement is: pay for premium or watch the ads. (This way they can pay their bills (including employee salaries and the creators that make the content).)
Very much a tantrum.
It might frustrate you personally -- the same way it might frustrate you to have to pay money to see a movie at a movie theater -- but I don't see what isn't acceptable about it socially.
However, once they serve me something and it’s received by my user agent, I will use that user agent however I see fit to parse and display (or not display) that content.
I’ll rephrase my position: Google is free to ban my IP, require a payment before serving me videos, or whatever else they feel is appropriate to stop me from using their electricity without being compensated appropriately. But if they serve me a page containing a video, I have every right to instruct the software on my device to render that video however I see fit. This in no way is morally or legally comparable to stealing, theft, fraud, or whatever other words people are throwing around.
The value of me watching ads is absolutely zero. (From my point of view in fact, it's negative).
Advertising works on multiple levels, with direct sales not necessarily being the only acceptable result:
Besides, I only watch youtube ad-free. If this becomes impossible I will simply stop watching youtube, so, I don't think this strategy will have much effect on me either, at least within the context of youtube.
Advertisers want more though, and inventory owners have drunk deep from the cash hose for so long that they want to normalize and enforce behavior that we the public have merely put-up-with till now. We as the audience are now being told that we OWE the pizza store our time and eyeballs; throwing away the ad flyer, why, that's STEALING! If you're a moral citizen, you'll sit there and read every line of copy, sing along with every jingle, watch every dancing mascot, otherwise you're a thief. We keep this up, and closing your eyes will soon be a crime.
That makes about as much sense as saying a store hiring a security guard to reduce theft is having a tantrum.