Someone on Reddit published an EU ruling on ad blocking, but it wasn't all that clear what the courts had decided. From my layman's view, it looked like they can deny access to content if you block ads but can't forbid the use of ad blocking. In other words, you're free to block ads and they're free to just not show you the content.
While confusing, at least to me, it comes down to content ownership. They're free to disallow access.
When you upload your content to YouTube, you're giving them pretty much unlimited distribution rights. So, they can stop you from viewing without also viewing ads.
From the post, they had pictures of a typed copy of the ruling, they also indicated that it was the only time the courts had ruled on the subject.
Now, the method used to implement anti-adblocking may violate the EU laws. But, blocking is within the EU laws - at least according to that ruling.
Again, I'm just a layperson. While I did some classes on law, that was US law. I am decidedly not a lawyer. I am also not your lawyer. None of what I say should be considered legal advice.
Me? A script may notice that you're blocking ads on my Linux site. It'll happily tell you that you're blocking ads. You can just dismiss it and, assuming you allow cookies, it shouldn't bug you again for at least 30 days.
I like it if you view the ads. I like it even more if you click on the ads that interest you. That's pretty much the only thing that offsets the costs of hosting the site and paying for the CDN. But, I don't insist that you do so. I'm okay with you viewing my content without contributing.