Selling tools to commit crimes can be bad depending on the crime. Removing Youtube's ability to monetise probably doesn't do that much harm on a micro scale, but is problematic on a macro scale. This isn't like most piracy where the sales baseline remains the same and those who wouldn't buy will pirate, this is mostly just directly revenue negative to Youtube.
Is this really a crime? The tool does not redistribute copyrighted material for example. It only reshapes video sent to your device, allowing you to decide which parts to view.
This is a weak argument because YouTube isn't a public street it's a private business
You aren't forced to use it, it is a choice
And this application (FreeTube) is for the sole purpose of circumventing their (YouTube) monetization for the sake of convenience
I don't have a dog in the fight and I'm certainly not a fan of YouTube or Google, but you can't argue it's somehow ok just because you dislike ads or lack of privacy on a "free" video streaming website
And YouTube as a private business can refuse to serve people using ad blockers or alternative clients. But that doesn't make it illegal to use an ad blocker as the parent post was implying.
I'm confused as to whether you're for it against the behaviour.
I'd say both of those things makes it ok to do whatever you can to avoid them - given that YouTube appears happy enough to serve ads for various obvious scams that wouldn't make it past television advertising standards bodies.
