The argument against it is that by visiting a site you are initiating an exchange as determined by the site operator. In the case of YT, you are watching a video you want to, and must in return watch ads or pay for a premium subscription. The technical details, according to this argument, are invisible to most people and therefore irrelevant. This is, of course, a stance that only makes sense to someone without a real sense of ownership over their computing devices, i.e. to someone who views computers as appliances that are used to consume services.
If the page content included the content that was supposed to be behind paywall, but you didn't agree to any ToS because you never had seen the paywall, how far in the forest does the pained cry of IP lawyer carry?