this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
2309 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

60062 readers
4304 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So is this basically saying youtube isn't allowed to detect an adblocker?

I'm not sure I really follow why that specifically is something they're policing.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It about device detection and privacy. Websites in the EU aren't allowed to scan your hardware or software without your permission, to protect the users privacy. Adblockers fall under this.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If thats how it works, they could very easily just check if the ad ever got loaded and refuse to serve you content until it does. Going after the way they prevent people from abusing their services doesn't stop them from preventing them - it just gives them a new hurdle and that's not a very big one.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Well many adblockers can be clever enough to load the asset, but then just drop it. As in yeah the ad image got downloaded to browser, but then the page content got edited to drop the display of the add or turn it to not shown asset in css.

This is age old battle. Site owners go you must do X or no media. However then ad blocker just goes "sure we do that, but then we just ghost the ad to the user".

Some script needs to be loaded, that would display the ad? All the parts of the script get executed and.... then CSS intervention just ghosts the ad that should be playing and so on.

Since the browser and extension are in ultimate control. As said the actual add video might be technically "playing" in the background going through motions, but it's a no show, no audio player.... ergo in practice the ad was blocked, while technically completely executed.

Hence why they want to scan for the software, since only way they can be sure ad will be shown is by verifying a known adhering to showing the ad software stack.

Well EU says that is not allowed, because privacy. Ergo the adblocker prevention is playing a losing battle. Whatever they do on the "make sure ad is shown" side, adblocker maker will just implement counter move.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your comment makes me think of Googles new DRM protocol, and then about Ken Thompsons compiler hack, combined with most DRM get hacked eventually.

This gives me hope that even if Googles DRM becomes standard, it will be hacked and YouTube thinks it's showing ads on a unmodified signed page, but I am not seeing any ads.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So then Google just refuses to play the video until the appropriate time expires. Or they embed it in the video feed itself. There are more ways around this than you're making there out to be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Personally, I'd prefer waiting 15s to start the video than watching 15s of ad before atching the video, ads have been proven to have an effect on your brain that's why they keep showing them to you. It's not about the delay in video watching, it's about the ad itself.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

bro just solved the ad blocker problem! google needs to hire this man!!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Twitch seems to have figured out adblock blocking. Any idea what they're doing that's different?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From my understanding, they embed the ad in the video stream itself so that it's indistinguishable from the actual content. I imagine Google could serve ads from the same servers that serve videos and integrate them in a way that would be hard to detect, just like Twitch.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the one difference is that I don't think twitch ads are skippable while youtube's ads are. I assume embedding the ad into the video would prohibit that. Hopefully youtube doesn't do that because while the current ad situation is annoying, having only unskippable ads would be pretty unbearable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Well, YouTube is no stranger to worsening their platform so it really wouldn't surprise me if they slowly transitioned to unskipable ads

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

There are ways to get Twitch adblock as well. I use PurpleTV

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good, make them jump through that hoop and respect user privacy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not even a hoop. It's a slight side step. And they wouldn't be breaking anymore of your privacy. They'd still know you're not loading ads.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

But they wouldn't know how, or with what software. That is indeed protecting one's privacy.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As I understand it, detecting an adblocker is a form of fingerprinting. Fingerprinting like this is a privacy violation unless there is first a consent process.

The outcome of this will be that consent for the detecting will be added to the TOS or as a modal and failing to consent will give up access to the service. It won't change Youtube's behavior, I don't think. But it could result in users being able to opt out of the anti-adblock... just that it also might be opting out of all of YouTube when they do it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I'm all for this protection but for the sake of argument isn't use of the service consent to begin with? Or is that the American argument around these types of regulation?

I'm a pihole, vpn, adblock and invidious user ftr.. 😂

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

That's how the corporate-written laws in the USA handle it most likely. The EU actually has some amount of consumer protection. Burying it in a 100 page terms of service document doesn't count as consent either.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It depends on the context, but generally you require explicit permission for data-related stuff which means something like a checkbox or a signature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's "consent" from the POV of the law and the corporation, but I say fuck 'em. Do you really consent to everything? Did you read their ToS and Privacy Policy every time it's amended? In the plain everyday use of the word "consent" I mean. Not in the legal constructions we've created.

Thus, since I do not consent to everything in any ToS or Privacy Policy, I use adversarial tech. My use of adversarial tech is how I enforce my lack of consent to everything these platforms expect from me.

If they don't want us to use adversarial tech anymore, they can change their platforms so it's no longer necessary.