By this logic, buying e-books from Amazon is the worst value I can think of, because I can get them effortlessly from libgen and other "sources", and a single book can cost as much as the whole year of YouTube premium.
If you truly believe this (which I don't agree with), at least you're consistent. But I feel "adblock good, piracy bad" is a double standard that many people hold.
Practically, I think adblocker is even slightly worse than piracy. At least when you download a cracked game via a torrent, you don't cost Steam any money.
Except ad-blocker is literally just stealing bandwidth. Just because it's legal (under the current law), it doesn't mean it's morally right. Why should Youtube or any hosting service serves a user when they refuses to view the ads? YouTube is not a public service.
Yes, this is why YouTube should just refuse to serve you and other adblocker users. This way it can no longer steal your time, and it's the only fair solution.
It is morally right, not because it is legal, but because I was never asked to make a market transaction for the content. By your reasoning, it would be theft to close your eyes during a TV commercial. I completely reject your line of reasoning.
[0] https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki...