I don’t like that OP was locked out of his email.
But besides that, it’s not as if he broke some obscure TOS clause. He actively subverted the company’s revenue model to take its product for free. That’s about as obvious as it gets that you’re risking being blocked from a service.
How is this different than using an ad blocker in the browser?
Imagine you using adblock in the CNN website without being logged in and they block your access to all Time Warner services (for example HBO).
That said, fuck that. It's not like people haven't been subverting ads for ages. (From the simple pause recording when the ad starts, rewind just a tad bit and resume-recording when the movie continues to Pi-Hole and Blockada on Android.)
But to your question, if the ad blocker is subverting the company's revenue model and they can detect it, you risk the company blocking you. Per the Issue, it looks like the service that is there to scan for bad actors on your device may've picked up that NewPipe was installed on their device which may've caused them to look (speculation on all counts).
Would that mean that using progs like `youtube-dl` to fetch videos from Youtube may get your Goog Account deleted?
I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube. Technically, I quit Netflix once they started showing me ads, even though they were for their own shows (general dark patterns were the more significant factor though).
So in principle I would have to say that one shouldn't mute TV ads, or skip them using +10 second buttons. Of course I will not always live my life up to that principle...
That just doesn't make sense. Not using their services has zero advantages compared to blocking ads. But by using them, you raise their costs, making their business model less viable.
> I don't use an ad blocker, and if I don't want to see ads I pay for the service, such as with Reddit, Ars Technica, Windows Live Mail, Netflix, and YouTube.
By paying for services, you show that you have disposable income. You cannot escape ads that way except in the short term.
The control is only authoritarian if those being controlled by it have no recourse. As applied to governments, authoritarianism has strong central power and limited political freedoms. In the US, we believe in the principles of limited central power, and many political freedoms. (Whether or not this is the situation depending on who you are is the topic of another day because this is how it should be, and the only way it may have become not that is if we have allowed our complacencies to kick in and allow it to happen. I am a firm believer in the concept of "people get the government they deserve in a democracy." ) Ultimately the governmental authoritarian control is beholden to the people and can be eradicated. The only reason we feel as if it can't be is because we have allowed the power to creep up over the years and it seems like an insurmountable mountain, but rest assured if you pick up that pick axe and start chipping away rock by rock you absolutely can tear it down.
Likewise, authoritarianism applied to a corporation implies strong central power, and limited consumer freedoms. This is also patently false in the US. The US has anti-trust laws to prevent centralized control, consumer protection agencies, and the free market. The consumer ultimately always has the freedom to choose another option. If the corporation loses too many consumers, then the corporation goes under. I understand there is a lot of nuance, but this is the basic principles of how things should operate in this country, and the mechanisms for things to operate are in fact there. The question then becomes what are it's people doing about it?
Just wanted to observe that this belief presupposes the US ever lived up to the principles you outline. US history shows that the country has never quite lived up to its touted values.
You had me going until this, nice satire
It is so commonplace that we miss it, but one ruling organization steps down and another, often with opposing views, steps up.
(Though it probably helped that the French Revolution had happened before ;))