this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1276 points (96.0% liked)

Technology

60076 readers
4241 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] 321 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Whatever happens on my browser is client side, which is hardware and software I own. I can make what I own do what I want. It's a right.

It's like Google saying that I can't skim a magazine in my home, and that I must read the ads. Google can do what they want server-side, and I'll do what I want client-side.

[–] [email protected] 101 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They're not saying you can't have an adblocker. They're saying their software will try not to serve you their data if you do, or at least make it inconvenient.

You have a right to your computer. You do not have a right to their service.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's exactly what I said, yeah

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Me after reading the 1st comment: "OK. True. Fair." Me after reading the 2nd comment: "OK. True. Fair." Me after reading the 3rd comment: "OK. Also true. Also fair."

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Me reading you:

Fourth gosh darn level of agree

I’ll never disable my PiHole or turn off ublock tho

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I wish PiHole wasn’t so absolute dogshit about DNS requests from outside the local subnet, might use it then

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

Permit all origins, allow all destinations. In the settings.

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

Tried that, it just reverts back after a few weeks :/

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

There was a rabbi arbitrating a dispute between neighbours. One of them complained that the other one gathers apples that fall off his apple tree and into the other neighbour's garden. "Those are my apples grown on my tree. He's stealing them!"

"You're right," says the rabbi. But the other neighbour counters.

"But the branches of the tree are above my property. If he doesn't want them to fall on my garden, he can cut off the branch. But he lets them fall into my garden making them my apples."

"You're right," says the rabbi and adjourns the diapute to be able to think about it. He's at his wit's end and tells the whole story to his wife when he gets home.

"That doesn't make sense. They can't both be right."

"You're right."

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, you don't have a right to it. If they want to they can put the entire site being a subscriber paywall. That's their call. But until they do that i will continue to access the site with my adblocked browser.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

You do have a right to your computer. After content is delivered to you, you have downloaded data, and your own hardware and software acts to consume said downloaded data. After it is downloaded, even if it is in a browser in a cache, it is considered offline content. This also applies to streaming media chunks, too: once it's downloaded, you have acquired it locally.

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

They don't have the right to disregard my right to privacy either, yet here we are.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Well.... They do because it's their tos, no?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And as a service provider, they can choose to degrade your experience. It goes both ways.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Except they want to send you videos. The power is with you, the viewer. Without you, advertisers will have no reason for buying ads. Google can't collect your data either. Realise that you have this power. Youtube is not like electricity or clean water. We can live without it if push comes to the shove.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be fair, what they want is to make money off of you, be it through metadata or through advertising. It's just that sending you videos happens to be the model which they use to get the metadata or advertising income.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

If they wanted to make money off of me then they should have kept the Pixel Pass as a thing so I'd have a reason to have YT premium

Or make YT premium worth it

But nah, they'd rather ruin the product I was paying for, so now they get nothing. At least then I'm not paying for it to get worse

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don't want to send us videos, they want to serve us ads and annoy us into buying Youtube Premium, which someone using adblocker won't see, or need. From their point of view they would win either way - if they successfully block adblockers it either converts us into ad watchers, premium subscribers, or we fuck off and stop using their bandwidth.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's funny because I pay for premium and have noticed a worse experience since this was revealed. They don't seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

They don't seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

They definitely seem to have checks in place for it. I have Family Premium and so far no issues at all.

Edit: to clarify, not a fan of any of this. Just saying it does work for me

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

Weird. It's not happening to me today. Maybe it was something else.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You have no value to advertisers if they can't serve you ads. By not doing so, they'll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it's a double positive for them.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, they can send me 500s if they want to, too

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

Technically 400s would be more appropriate here. :)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Response codes only matter to good-faith actors

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If the service degrades to far due to using ad blockers then I'll just stop watching anything on YouTube. Easy.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Okay then. That was always allowed.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Umm, ok. You were not making them any money before, when you were blocking their ads, why would they care if you left?

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

Because the big channels will get a significant drop in views which lowers their sponsor pay and willingness to work with them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I think you're overestimating how many people care enough about this.

Remember when killing password sharing was gonna be the death of Netflix, and then they saw a significant increase in subscriptions and profits?

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

A possible answer is because the creators that have their own sponsors in their videos want the view even if you don't see the Google ads, so Google on one hand want you to watch their ads while on the other hand cannot afford to really lose you since that would reflects on the creators and then if a creator leave for another platform (a big if, I agree) Google lose all the traffic generated by said creator, both who use an adblocker and who don't use an adblocker.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Google can do what they want server-side

Sure, like not sending you videos. 🤔

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Client side DRM is coming.

They’re mostly there on Android already.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

You forgot to mention it's also coming to all Chromium based browsers (i.e. Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc) as well in the form of ManifestV3

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

Manifest V3 doesn't really have the real client side DRM. It just has the ad-blocker breaking API changes. The real DRM will be whatever comes of the abandoned Web Environment Integrity API. (It's not really abandoned just shifted over to only Android WebView.)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s ok. Us nerds have been defeating DRM in its many forms for decades. This will be no different.

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

Not really true for video games. Plenty of popular games still with uncracked denuvo...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

It's called a "User Agent" for a reason.

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

You can, but as a part of doing what they want serverside they can ask for some kind of proof you don't have an adblocker on the server-side, you can reverse engineer that and spoof the checks and it becomes an arms race just like we have now... You're effectively just saying the status quo is a-ok with you

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't personally enjoy the status quo, but they're not obligated to serve me any videos if they don't want to. However, if they have given me media to consume on my devices, it's up to me to decide how I consume the media that was already delivered.

load more comments (2 replies)