- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Even if the experience is fantastic, I don’t like when a company tries to force me to buy premium, so if it’s the only way I’ll search for another platform
I never got this pop up (i use Firefox + Ublock)
It’s not fully rolled out yet.
Does that mean Firefox + Ublock Origin is blocked too?
Yeah
How does YouTube know whether I’m blocking or not if it all happens at the client side?
They make a test request from the client and check it’s received on the server end and returns what they expect on the client end at a guess. Basically they try to load an ad and if they don’t see the request on the server, or the client doesn’t get the sort of data it expects, it assumes you’re ad blocking.
What if we allow the request but then just discard the response?
The client side code probably expects to see and use the data, although I could be wrong on that. Some ad block do work like that though, I think.I find just deliberately taking a 30 second break to be the easiest ad block, and it’s better for you too.
The problem for me is when I use youtube videos to fall asleep and adblocks doesn’t work.
youtube-dl is your friend.
I like how we’re going back to straight up pirateing to not get hit by ads.
I mean, if youtube premium were $5/mo I would consider it.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Put a few blocks of information encoded in the video of the ad itself. Require that block of information as a key to watch the next video on Youtube.
Interesting. But it probably only takes less than a few seconds for a program to scan a 30s video file and extract that bit of information.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
This message is displayed in the browser because Google asked your browser to do it, and your browser got the message and put it there.
When displaying ads, the end user experience is 100% client-side. You are using your screen and speakers to observe it. You can turn off your speakers and screen if you want, which will effectively “block” the ad.
But that is silly. Not only do you own your screen and speakers, but you have control of what you’re browser is doing, too (if you use a respectable browser). When HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other content is downloaded, just that happened: file downloads. After it has been downloaded, your browser then consumes it.
When it is consumed, a lot happens, but ultimately, the code in the browser displays content. Your (respectable) browser does all of this, and will change the look depending on local fonts, accessibility options, etc. With an ad block add-on, it will also remove these ads.
However, when ads are removed, the DOM is mutated with deleted or replaced content. It is possible for a website to then write ad block detection scripts to see if the ad contents have been removed or not. There are many ways to do this, and this screenshot is the result of one way of doing it.
However, enter the cat-and-mouse-chase of ad block block blocks. You can block your ads, then block the ad block block like this screenshot. These types of ad block rules are less common, but many public ones are available. Check the uBlock Origin lists in the setting page. By default, only about a third of the lists are enabled, and these extra blocks are in there.
Another avenue of determining that ads were not loaded is for the server to inspect if client-side (you) requests were made to fetch the ads. Even if this is in place, the server cannot determine if you have actually watched the ad or not. It could try to do more client-side attempts at validating that you somehow displayed it, but again, that’s client-side.
Imagine if you were sent a letter and a pamphlet in the mail. Imagine if the letter said that you could mail them back for a free sample of their product, but only if you read the pamphlet. They would have to trust that you read it, because you are reading your mail in the privacy of your own home. However, you could opt to toss the pamphlet (like an ad blocker) and never read it. It’s your mail, your home, and your choice.
Really well explained. Thanks
deleted by creator
The worst case scenario is that they only serve video to logged-in users, require accounts to be verified with government-issued ID, and enforce the whole thing with the web browser DRM they just proposed.
Make no mistake: this is a war on the public’s property rights and their right not to have ads inflicted on them Clockwork Orange-style. It can get a lot worse than you think, and will unless we force the government to stop them legislatively.
Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right. It’s an optional service. Why aren’t we all up in arms about the 5,000 porn sites that have paywalled their services for years? IMO the response to “youtube won’t let users use the site without ads” should be “lets help peer tube be more succesful” Just as we are here rather than trying to make a law to get reddit to open up their API for free.
I don’t like youtube. But I don’t think it’s fair or viable to mandate them allow their content for free without ads. That’s a bit like mandating hotels give rooms for free. Hosting videos costs a non zero amount of money. Google intends to make more money from advertisements then they spend on hosting videos.
Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right.
You know what is a right? Your property right to control the operation of your computer. Google is, as we speak, trying to violate that right by colonizing it with DRM and subverting your property to serve their own ends instead of yours.
Google has the right to serve a 403 error to anybody who refuses to pay, but they do not have the right to usurp control of people’s property to forcibly display ads. And make no mistake, it’s very much the latter that they (and all the other companies) are trying to do, as evidenced by things like this.
Do you “fathom” it now? How much clearer do I need to make it?
I’m missing here. This isn’t the sony rootkit to my knowledge. Right now we’re talking about youtube itself detecting it’s ads aren’t being shown and throwing up a page blocking the rest.
“Evidenced by” a non google service putting ads in it’s premium service? Don’t get me wrong it’s bullshit, but again a reason to not use spotify.
I don’t need no stinky ad blocker! With a custom user stylesheet is enough…, that is, if you’re using something other than Chrome, because Chrome removed user stylesheets for “reasons”.
Reasons: “we don’t like it when you try to slightly moderate our torrents of spam”
Reasons of adware
That looks illegal
I’m almost afraid to ask but… how?
Nevermind, it was a legal gray area in the EU for some time, but now it’s legal
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
I thought it was illegal under our EU privacy laws, but apparently it wasn’t really.
Sure.
Personally I’ve never had a problem. However Newpipe seems borked of late, is it related?
There was a recent update to new pipe, make sure you’re running the latest code
I used NewPipe only yesterday with no problem.
If you installed it through Fdroid and you aren’t using Newpipe’sown repository, you’re probably using an outdated version
It was. I got the github version and it’s working now.
I just tried it now and it works fine. Tried a video posted 2 weeks ago and a video posted 5 hours ago. Both played just fine 🤷🏻♀️
They may be doing this in some countries and not others or just A/B testing users based on some random allocation of accounts.
I would not be surprised if Google wants to understand how effective something like this is in terms of getting people to disable adblock vs them just being like “welp fuck YouTube I guess.” So would make a lot of sense to A/B test this rather than roll it out across the board.
Yeah, I subsequently learned it may be rolling out in different countries. I meant to update my comment as such but forgot :/ FYI: In case anyone’s interested, I’m in New Zealand.
deleted by creator
I have been adblocking on YouTube for as long as I remember. Personally I think it’s unusable without an adblocker. What’s the alternative? Because I am not suddenly going to pay for a platform that keeps getting worse all the time.
There is peertube. I’m not familiar with its limitations. Technically it is possible for someone to try and track your activity because it’s P2P.
The content is currently lacking. I’m kind of wondering what limitations are in place for each user to upload video. Can someone make a bot to start reuploading content from their favorite streamers?
And unfortunately IDK of any alternatives to YouTube. A big part of the problem is that some of my favorite creators only upload to YouTube. I don’t want to switch to an alternative and lose a large percentage of the content that I like to watch, that would be pretty shitty.
When ever I see someone using YouTube without an adblocker it looks like some cheap chinese knock-off or something. As someone who sees less ads than 99% of people I’ve genuinely became a bit oversensitive to them. Podcasts are the only thing I keep paying attention to despite them having ads which even then I always skip over. Other than that every online platform I use is ad-free and I don’t watch TV or listen to radio either.
bilibili, an actual chinese knockoff has less ads
You’d rather watch some chinese stuff than ads?
You’d rather watch some chinese stuff than ads?
Same for me, I wish there was something like sponsorblock for podcasts.
I like to listen to podcasts in the gym and I will interrupt my set to skip sponsors and ads. The enshittification on Spotify is particularly bad as they now play ads in addition to sponsorings for premium listeners.
Yeah I don’t personally use spotify for podcasts even though I have premium aswell. Except for the occasional JRE episode I listen everything else on Podcast Republic.
Thanks for the tip, I will try that one out!
Can you filter pick it out? Like using the eye dropper thingy?
What country are you in? I wonder if they’re rolling it out to smaller markets to see how much backlash they get.
Time to get a federated video hosting service scaled up ASAP. But who could afford the bandwidth and storage? We need a stable torrent-based streaming solution I suppose.
It really isn’t. I can get a gigabit pipe and all the storage i can cram into a 4U for a few hundred a month. That is enough to serve several dozen users. Add on a CDN and now you can serve thousands or more. I can probably find 10 or 100 gigabit offerings for not much more.
The bigger issue is copyright. A site that gains traction in the video space by ripping youtube videos would get sued into oblivion.
Is “allowlist” the new word for whitelist?
Not really new, it’s been around for about a decade. Otherwise: yes.
Some people mistakenly think that the “black” in “blacklist” is a reference to skin color, so they demand it to be changed.
“Excuse me, it’s ‘list of color’.”
I’m honestly glad we’re getting rid of white/black list. I personally couldn’t give a shit the racial element (which wasn’t what they ever meant anyway), but I never have to stop and think about it for a half second to figure out which I need. Allow/deny list are just outright better names.
Blacklist and whitelist are intuitive to me. It’s the black/red/white -pill stuff I never even try to remember
I’ve dealt with them a lot but they never really stuck for some reason. Allow/block is much clearer IMO
Seems like it’s controlled test in different countries and segments. I (Europe) get this popup in Firefox, I also use pi-hole DNS and ublock origin.
Also Europe here, using ublock and firefox, and I don’t get that popup.
Dies your PiHole block Youtube ads?
It doesn’t because it can’t the ads and videos are on the same domain now
Thanks, I thought so.
It does not. It can only block domains. Youtube ads use same domain as actual videos.
Thanks, I thought so.
Is this real? The post title seems to imply it’s something that might happen in the future?
look into Web Environment Integrity. This particular screenshot is probably fake, but it’s coming very soon.
No, the screenshot is real, they’ve been testing it in selected regions for a little bit
This has nothing to do with WEI. Google can do more than one shitty thing at once you know.
This has nothing to do with WEI
This has everything to do with WEI … what are you taking about?
WEI is a proposed modification to Chrome/Chromium that doesn’t even exist yet, and that would have the side effect of blocking adblockers on every site that implements WEI.
This here is an already existing change to the YouTube service that blocks adblockers on YouTube, across all browsers, Firefox included. It does not use or need WEI to do this.
Well they can block Deez nutz
