If an entity takes measures to ensure that its service becomes the de-facto default in an area, that entity gives up its entitlement to dictate the terms of use of that service. We need something like this in our systems of ethics, or we permit Freedom Monsters (ref: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/259). Note that this isn't the only solution, but I expect other solutions to have the same shape.

If Google didn't promote YouTube so heavily, permitted channels to migrate to other services (like how they permit Blogger blogs to migrate to other websites), bundled a generic streaming video player with Android (e.g. VLC) instead of the YouTube app… then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to the position of content blocker opponents. To convince me to pay for YouTube, you have to offer me something other than "we've locked a capability of your computer away, but you can get it back if you pay us!".

Notably, there's no need to move the goalposts, as they remain unmet; the original premise was

> a modest fee for a non-tracking, ad-free, non-enshittified YouTube

And YT Premium is

[x] modest fee - I could argue that either way (is $14/mo really "modest"?), but let's allow it

[ ] non-tracking - not that I'm aware of

[~] ad-free - partially; right now YT itself won't add more ads, so you're just left with the ads that uploaders embed

[~] non-enshittified - depends what you mean; ex. I believe it does restore the ability to play audio with the screen off, but not downvoting

Hackers will spend unlimited amounts of time and energy to argue why they shouldn't pay for something. I think it was the Dalai Lama who said that the highest ethical principle that exists is to use things without paying for them, and that it is in fact the people providing goods and services who are oppressing the people who are using them. But I could have remembered wrong.