It's the same idea, it's a transaction. YouTube and the creators on the platform provide content for free, and you only have to view an ad (or pay). You are essentially choosing to dine and dash, just without the same of doing it in person.
A snippet: " Permissions and Restrictions You may access and use the Service as made available to you, as long as you comply with this Agreement and applicable law."
Not a dang thing in there about "free". Now, you can argue whether or not your saw those terms, or agreed to them, but the TOS are legally binding.
Don't like those TOS, fine, makes no difference to me. But calling those videos "free" is not only naive, but wrong.
Worse than meaningless.
For a contract to be valid, they need to talk to me in person, and get my signature. They don't get to pretend it's a contract and bully the rest of the world into acting like it is.
If they do not like me sending http requests to them, it's up to them to ignore them.
> but the TOS are legally binding.
Not only are they not legally binding, anyone who makes claims like this should be denied all political rights. No voting, no sitting on juries, none of it. You have demonstrated your profound and fundamental unfittness to decide policy for other people, and humanity can't really risk it if you say you've seen the error of your ways.