The price was agreed upon in the same way that the price in the grocery store is agreed upon.
The content provider set the price, in this case, the price being consuming an advertisement.
To be totally clear, I absolutely advocate for piracy in some situations, I'm not going to get into the weeds and talk about the specifics when I do or do not advocate for it, but to extend upon the grocery store analogy, there are also some situations where I would absolutely advocate for someone to steal from the grocery store. And I'm not going to get into the weeds and talk about the specifics for when I do or do not advocate for that either. The point though is by calling ad blocking piracy I'm not making a moral judgment on whether or not it is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that it is functionally the exact same thing.
YouTube subscription does have traction... And like I said, every streaming service has an ad free option. Some of them have an ad supported cheaper option, but they all have some option that allows you to consume the content without ads. It seems like you're kind of just talking out of your ass.
There's an economics of everything at play here, broadcast television had ads, cable TV at first didn't but it was also significantly more expensive. Cable TV wanted to lower prices to attract more customers, and in order to do that they started receiving more money from advertisers to make up the difference. Not all of the cable TV channels did this. However, even to this very day there are plenty of cable TV channels that don't have ads. They are considered the premium channels that you have to pay extra for.
The same thing is going to continue to be true on the internet as well, You will always have options to avoid ads by paying for the content that you want.