For example GPL code is often $0, but that doesn't give me the option of ignoring the copyleft provisions if I don't like them. The only valid options are to comply or to not use it.
I honestly wonder how well this has been tested in courts for web sites. As an example, if I visit a web site that has a "Terms of Use" link, but I don't click on the link, will the courts still rule that I'm bound by them?
An extreme case: If there is a static web site with images, and somewhere on the page there is a Terms of Use along the lines of "If you view these images you must pay me 10 cents", then is that legally binding?
(Note: Copyright is very different from "terms of use").
I vaguely recall there was a ruling that if you buy a physical item and its terms of use are in the box (i.e. you cannot view it without buying), then you are not bound by them. Of course, this is not analogous.
My respect of copyleft does not come from a want to adhere to legal terms, but instead an appreciation for what those terms hope to achieve more broadly, and the positive impact they have on society. As I described in another comment, I do not owe FAANG respect or legal cooperation it doesn't reciprocate.
Of course, if you feel like it's your duty to run the web without adblockers, I understand that, and more power to you.
We know they're keen to lobby and litigate their way out of laws, and pay paltry fines when they fail to do so, but I cannot predict the next instance beyond enumerating any currently ongoing cases.