This assumes they have a right to my attention and what code runs on my computer. I have no problem with ad blocking.
Discussion
Not really. The ads pay the creator and the infrastructure to run the services that you are getting for free. Blocking them is to going against the terms offered by both the creator and the platform to give you free content. If you don't like the terms, don't use the product. But don't just block ads and think it's ok. It's not.
Ads are always a marginal business. A tiny fraction of people who are presented with ads convert; many impressions are required to make that person convert. There are things you can do within your own mind to ignore ads; leveraging tools to make yourself more ad-resistant is the same thing. Businesses with ad models understand this, and design ads to bypass both personal sales resistance, as well as the tools we use to hide ads from us. Advertising is essentially a misaligned model, with resistance built-in on both sides. It's just part of the game.
I agree. That's why we have been fighting for so long to minimize the effectiveness of Nostr players from becoming ad-based businesses.
But we are not there today. Most clients don't even check if the hash from Blossom is still the same as the author intended. Imagine other services that don't even offer a way to check.
I have no contract with websites on the Internet like YouTube. Despite their intent, unless they get a signed contract from me that stipulates that I will follow their rules, then their rules do not apply to me. Their website is under no obligation to serve me content, and if it serves it to me, that cannot be my fault. Things that say "by using this website you agree...blah blah blah" are IMHO null and void; I do not believe that browsing a website establishes a contract.
Whether my opinion is legally correct or not isn't really very interesting to me because this isn't going to be challenged in court. It is more of a moral justification for ad blocking.
Fairy tales we create to convince ourselves we are doing good
For terms and conditions to be legally binding, they must meet the elements that create a legally binding contract, including mutual manifestation of assent, which means both parties must agree to the terms. Additionally, the terms should be clearly presented and accessible, not buried in the website footer, as courts have found this to be insufficient for legal binding.
Both parties must demonstrate their intention to be legally bound.
I believe, however, that if a website makes clear to the user that certain content may only be accessed according to their Terms and Conditions, and the user understands this, at that point they may not access the content without agreeing to said terms and conditions.
By the way, https://www.youtube.com/t/terms does not forbid ad blocking.