You are still not understanding. EU law doesn't protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It's like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don't have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It's still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don't have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don't follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

You are mixing two things. Nobody can just blast ads on your phone without your consent. But you did give consent by accessing YouTube.

I think that's morally quite okay... well, compared to people's general mindset in this thread.

But still, think about your creators without YouTube. Where do they go? Nebula? Maybe something like that would work. Likely, if YT is no more. Would that change anything? Not really. There will always be problems, the bigger something is, the worse it gets.

Also, I don't understand your reference, but that's okay.

IDK maybe I'm bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don't think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it's probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don't see how you disagree with me.

I'm not sure if Linus Tech Tips agree with me, but from context, I'll assume so. Anyway, the free market isn't a real argument to me. All it tells me is that YouTube and most big creators have a solid business model.

My argument consists of basically two aspects:

Paying money for Youtube content is better value than watching ads for YouTube content. Your time and to an extent mental state is, for 95% of users, worth more than that money.

Not paying money and not watching ads is not sustainable and morally reprehensible. Their service doesn't finance itself if nobody grants it any income. It they demand a compensation for their goods and services, you are to either compensate them or forego the offer. You cannot just assume that a bunch of other people compensate for the lost income through you. It morally doesn't work like that. If you do that, you better be okay with financially stablr people stealing in grocery stores too.

The median house proce in Oklahoma is super low. Try finding a home in the west.

I actually speak a bit of italian. It's pronounced "bolonya" in american phonetics. I was actually supposed to go study in Bologna but unfortunately my uni canceled the deal.

The post is more about how americans pronounce the city of Bologna.

WhatsApp is fine IMO. It's really just an instant messanger that does about as much as any other. In terms of privacy, WhatsApp is far from bad compared with other apps. The fact that Meta own WhatsApp doesn't really impact that too much.

So, your killer criteria are glass UI? I do agree on Windows Laptop battery life.

I had that phone. Aside from some UI stuff and that whole 4k Netflix licensing stuff it worked pretty well.