> You know that when a public pace of business has "No dogs" sign and you enter it, that you entered into a contract with that business

You are incorrect about that, which probably invalidates your other arguments. A condition of entry is not a contract. If you disobey the condition of entry then you have not broken a contract, and nothing changes between you and the business owner. They can ask you to leave and they can trespass you if you do not, but importantly, they can do those things for any reason they like, whether you obey the conditions of entry or not.

It is not a contract by law, nor does it meet the definition of a contract.

Similarly, YouTube can retract their website from public view, or attempt to block you specifically. But you have not entered into a contract with them by viewing the site.

> A condition of entry is not a contract.

It's literally a legal contract, under contract law. It's called a unilateral contract.

I didn't expect a Dunning-Kruger effect on NH, but here we are.

If you bring a dog in, you cannot be sued for any sort of tort relating to breach of contract. At most, you could be asked to leave, and sued for damages if the dog broke something or someone.

Please don't attack others, and in general, it's not a good idea to use terms like Dunning-Kruger when you are incorrect. Ad blocking is not piracy under any statuatory or case law, period.

As far as I can find, in the US and the UK, conditions of entry to a business are considered an implied license and not an implied contract because there's no mutual intent to form a binding legal agreement. A business can revoke the license and trespass you, but they cannot sue you for breach of contract.

A unilateral contract requires some kind of "promise accepted through performance"

I note that this does appear to be different under Australian law, if that is where you're from, although it's still not a unilateral contract.