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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 397 points 1 year ago (22 children)

So many corporate bootlickers here, damn.

[–] [email protected] 188 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (41 children)
load more comments (41 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 1 year ago (8 children)

In the second quarter of 2023, Google's revenue amounted to over 74.3 billion U.S. dollars, up from the 69.1 billion U.S. dollars registered in the same quarter a year prior.

But man if we don't pay for youtube premium how will they survive?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'll say it again: Google pays 5-year-old "influencers" millions of dollars. They have always harvested your data to provide these free services - selling ads was just icing. They still harvest your data and sell ads and they still make the same money they've always made - only now they are insisting that everyone watch ads or pay for it as well. And of course, eventually YouTube will insist that you watch ads and pay for it. This is the equivalent of "network decay" for streaming services. This is unreasonable and while there are exceptions to the rule, most people have the same reaction to what Google is doing here: surprise, and dismay, if not outright anger and disgust.

Yet every single thread about it on the Internet is utterly overflowing with people lecturing us about how we shouldn't expect something for nothing, as if we aren't fully aware that this is the most transparent of straw men. These people insist that we are the problem for daring to block ads - and further - that we should be thrilled to pay Google for this content, as they are. And they are! They just can't get enough of paying Google for YouTube! It's morally upright, it's the best experience available and money flows so freely for everyone these days, we should all be so lucky to be able to enjoy paying Google the way they do. And of course it's all so organic, these comments.

Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 268 points 1 year ago (55 children)

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he's making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they're doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn't stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he's repeatedly flaunting credentials that don't change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah yeah the kind of hullabaloo that makes everyone accept cookies on every single website ;)

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (54 children)

You're missing the point/s

  1. What they're doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
  2. What they're doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
  3. Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn't be able to help themselves to users local data, and it's something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
  4. This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a "dead end", it's the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.
load more comments (54 replies)
load more comments (53 replies)
[–] [email protected] 206 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Everyday I think the European Union for preventing the internet from being worse than it could be. It's sad that back when the internet was a cesspool was so far the best age for it. Normies really do ruin everything

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The same EU that threaten E2EE?

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago

The EU has its faults, too, like this BS about sacrificing encryption. Overall, there seem to be a lot of benefits reigning in big companies, though.

Who else is looking out for their citizens? I think some congresspeople in the US ask tough questions, but in the end, business just goes on as usual.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Don't be an asshole and blame regular people for shit like this. This is because of big tech

[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually I will, because big Tech used to be on the level because they knew they would be called out for fuckery. Then Facebook brought the Baby Boomers online and it was the Eternal September on steroids.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 170 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every tech article I read nowadays I feel like has the appendix, "which is illegal in the EU." Lol

[–] [email protected] 108 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only thing still preventing mayhem along with California

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago

Seriously. Everything causes cancer which has the unfortunate effect of dulling the fear response but it is good to know. If you want to sell your product in California, which is where silicon valley is, you need to observe their safety standards.

And thank the EU we might actually get right to repair.

Elon can block EU for Twitter if he wants to but it's probably going to cost him even more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 128 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Cool, so YouTube will start putting pop ups that require you to consent to the detection in order to watch videos. That's what everyone did with the whole cookies thing when that was determined to be illegal without consent.

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago (6 children)

that would be illegal too, because that information is not strictly necessary for their service - they could only opt to not provide the service in the eu

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 124 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I only just posted a meme about the EU flooring companies for going against their regulations. It was my first post too :)
I'd really like to add YouTube to it. Godspeed.
Image

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 115 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.

YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.

[–] [email protected] 175 points 1 year ago (2 children)

that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.

[–] [email protected] 148 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (35 children)

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

This is why I've never had an issue blocking ads. Pick a couple creators you like, join their patreon or buy some merch. You owe YT nothing.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago

Just replying to confirm that "strictly necessary" has never meant, "makes us money." It means technically necessary.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 107 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Thank fuck for EU and GDPR

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 93 points 1 year ago (3 children)

... We're gonna get another cookie click-through, aren't we?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Do you consent to our use of intrusive browser detection, anti-cheat, rootkit usage and invasive brain implants to bombard you with ads?

Yes | Also yes but more annoying to click through

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Another three cheers for the EU! 🇪🇺🍻🥂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 73 points 1 year ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I am not paying for Premium again until they bring the dislike button back.

[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago

I am not paying for Premium.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was pathetic for them to hide away this button with its statistics. Honestly it's an valuable tool.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 65 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don't ask how, but my dad found out that at least with Ublock, cleaning the cache in the addon makes it bypass the stupid pop-up.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago

Because they updated their filters so you have to clear the old cached filters

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (6 children)

As an English person I thought yay that means us. Then I remembered. . .

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Not that the social media corps have ever given a shit.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You should all go file a complaint with a data protection agency.

The thread in the linked social network suggests concentrating the complaints to the Irish DPC: https://forms.dataprotection.ie/contact

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›