620
YouTube looks to be testing server-side ad injection to counter ad blockers (9to5google.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
227 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • YouTube is testing server-side ad injection to counter ad blockers, integrating ads directly into videos to make them indistinguishable from the main content.
  • This new method complicates ad blocking, including tools like SponsorBlock, which now face challenges in accurately identifying and skipping sponsored segments.
  • The feature is currently in testing and not widely rolled out, with YouTube encouraging users to subscribe to YouTube Premium for an ad-free experience.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 2 years ago (17 children)

Damn, this could stop Invidious, Piped and Newpipe from being able to block ads.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 71 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    It might take a lot more effort, but I don't think this will be the end. Google is required by law to label ads as such, giving these tools an opportunity to detect and skip them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Is there a loophole where they could delay the ad marking like 5 seconds into a longer ad so you'd have to watch at least 5 seconds before an extension can detect it? Is the law specific about it having to be marked as an ad for the entire duration?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    That would mean running an unmarked ad for five seconds, which would create an interesting legal question. But YouTube also buffers a good chunk of upcoming content, so there's enough upcoming video material to check.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    What law (and jurisdiction) are you thinking of?

    My understanding is that this would be covered with a blanket note on the page if it detects you aren't running Premium.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    At the very least I'd say that UK/Germany would be a good bet. Though the idea of just plastering the note over the whole video might do the trick, considering that's what some German channels already do if they are sponsored to stay on the safe side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You still aren't referencing a law. You are just saying you don't like it.

    I ANAL and am not a lawyer but: There ARE laws about saying if a video contains paid advertisement. That is why basically every single video on youtube has the "contains sponsored content" tag.

    There is no law saying that the specific seconds of the video need to be tagged. Which makes sense. It has been a minute since I watched network TV but I don't recall giant "AD" on my screen any time Hikaru Shida wasn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That could also make them okay with those existing, since they'll now play ads. Third party clients wouldn't be such a threat anymore to their bottomline, and people can get the privacy benefits of going through those proxies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Once several different instances have downloaded the same video, they could share information on which segments are the same?

    Ads would change for each download based on all the factors used in the automated ad auctions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent