@taatm@theseeduneed@mc@randahl I don't think so, simply because Invidious doesn't actually host YouTube videos (“packages them as someone else's”); it rather streams them, acting as a proxy (otherwise, operating an Invidious server would be infinitely expensive). This is very similar to VPN services blocking ads (such as Mullvad and ProtonVPN, I think). Also, the court verdict wasn't really about the private use of ad-blockers, but about providing ad-blocking software to the general public. 🤷