You are still not understanding. EU law doesn't protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

It's like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don't have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It's still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don't have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.

Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don't follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

You are mixing two things. Nobody can just blast ads on your phone without your consent. But you did give consent by accessing YouTube.

I think that's morally quite okay... well, compared to people's general mindset in this thread.

But still, think about your creators without YouTube. Where do they go? Nebula? Maybe something like that would work. Likely, if YT is no more. Would that change anything? Not really. There will always be problems, the bigger something is, the worse it gets.

Also, I don't understand your reference, but that's okay.

Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it's probably more nowadays).

I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don't see how you disagree with me.

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

The median house proce in Oklahoma is super low. Try finding a home in the west.

I can tell your house is nothing like what I'd wanna live in. If you can get a house for maybe 70k, yeah a downpayment of 20k works.

In most places a house will likely be 500k or above. Let's just say 500k for the sake of argument.. it's a simple number for your simple brain. You'll have to pay at least 20% up front. That's 100k in my example. However, that's quite an unreasonable thing to do in recent years, so I better suggest your downpayment be more than 30%, or 150k in this example. Generally, 40% is s very good downpayment in terms of long term financial security... that's already 200k. So yes. 200k is what the average person should expect. 20k wouldn't even get you the land.

I actually speak a bit of italian. It's pronounced "bolonya" in american phonetics. I was actually supposed to go study in Bologna but unfortunately my uni canceled the deal.

The post is more about how americans pronounce the city of Bologna.

WhatsApp is fine IMO. It's really just an instant messanger that does about as much as any other. In terms of privacy, WhatsApp is far from bad compared with other apps. The fact that Meta own WhatsApp doesn't really impact that too much.

So, your killer criteria are glass UI? I do agree on Windows Laptop battery life.

I had that phone. Aside from some UI stuff and that whole 4k Netflix licensing stuff it worked pretty well.