> You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content i don't k

> You could argue that they aren't somehow fundamentally entitled to make money, but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content i don't know. take radio for example. The advertiser has paid real money to the voice actors, scripts, etc, and the radio company for hosting their content and for propagation, this is real cost. so what happens if you turn off your radio and don't hear the radio commercial? are you obligated to listen to adverts on a radio? what happens if you make a manual hardware sponsorblock? can the advertiser sue a manufacturer of this manual hardware sponsorblock machine that is an addon to radio? the original selling point of the hardware machine would be to block explicit songs and adblocking would be an added benefit. could radio companies sue radio makers or this hardware machine maker for selling this addon? knowing full well that this maker is earning money. >but you are also not fundamentally entitled to consume their content here is an alternative answer argument. when you publish on a public website, you give away this "right to prevent consumption". youtube is a public website meaning anyone without login can access content so youtube and content creator and advertisers are forfeiting their right to demand remuneration. the alternative? well look at netflix. It is a paywalled service where only paid users access the content. There isn't much of adblocking on netflix or tracking protection and other stuff. What i am trying to say is, only netflix by their nature of a paywalled gateway can expect this "no payment, no content" rule because they have put technical roadblocks. if tomorrow netflix goes open, they will be treated like youtube.