[asadotzler]

TOS is not an agreement, it's a notice, an assertion from the provider that mandates absolutely nothing from you.

TOS is like me putting a sign up at the end of my driveway saying if you approach my home, you owe me $10. If you pull up to my house, I demand the $10, and you don't pay me, I cannot forcibly take $10 from you, nor can I call the cops or sue over the $10.

You never agreed to anything and certainly not in any legally binding format.

Notices are not contracts and TOS notices are notices.

[HDThoreaun]

Taking something without paying for it is theft. You can get into whatever legalize you want but that doesn’t change the fact that you are doing what the vast majority of people recognize as the common definition of theft. Is it illegal? No idea frankly but it’s certainly a decent reason for YouTube to stop serving you videos. Getting mad at YouTube for not serving you when you are not playing by their rules makes absolutely no sense to me and really just seems overwhelmingly entitled.

[mjx0]

> Taking something without paying for it is theft.

You keep using the word "theft". Let's grab the definition of "theft" from a legal dictionary:

> Theft is the taking of another person's personal property with the intent of depriving that person of the use of their property. Also referred to as larceny.

The intent of depriving another of their property is a key element of theft. When one receives a copy of data, no one is deprived of their property. It's substantially similar to how I can not steal your car by taking a photo of it.

Not only that, but the typical intellectual property industry nonsense of referring to unauthorized copying as "theft" does not apply. Google, who have acquired a right to distribute this data, are serving it to you.

> You can get into whatever legalize [sic] you want but that doesn’t change the fact that you are doing what the vast majority of people recognize as the common definition of theft.

The legalese matters because it's the best way we've come up with to consistently reason about topics like this regardless of shared values.

There is no theft happening in the case of blocking ads.

Your claim about "the vast majority of people" is patently absurd -- because you have not provided and almost certainly do not possess any evidence to substantiate it -- and lacks a basis in fact. Regardless, we do not reason about these things based on the fluctuating opinion of the masses. There is no case in which blocking ads meets "the common definition of theft".