Imagine if you walk into a 7/11 and just fill your bottle with soda for free without paying. They eventually decide that too many people were doing this, so they decide to place their soda machine behind the counter, so you're required to pay. Then you complain that they're putting all the other convenience stores out of business because they used to give you soda for free. This is how entitled you sound.
> they decide to place their soda machine behind the counter, so you're required to pay
Let's add another step before this:
Understand that people are visiting the store because the soda is free in practice and allow the practice to continue until other stores don't see any business because they can't afford to offer free soda.
Now we move the soda machine behind the counter because we don't like that people are getting free soda.
Then they complain about other convenience stores being put out of business.
If we're going to start calling people entitled, my eyes are still on Google.
This is a stretch. Youtube might have done something anticompetitive but I doubt allowing adblockers was one of them.
My point is that people who were never intent on paying businesses for their services never cared about the sustainability of those businesses in the first place and are just using it to rationalize their anger. This sort of moral consistency matters with civil law where good and bad aren't trivially obvious.
Society collectively agrees that it's good for supermarkets to offer loss leader rotisserie chickens. An argument can be made that it's anticompetitive because it basically put Boston Market out of business, but I wouldn't be as receptive if that came from someone who was caught stealing supermarket rotisserie chickens.
