▲ 757 ▼ YouTube’s anti-ad blocking test gets even pushier with a new timer (www.androidpolice.com) submitted 3 years ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 338 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bappity@lemmy.world 132 points 3 years ago* (25 children) ublock origin users: permalink fedilink source hideshow 25 child comments replies: [–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world [S] 62 points 3 years ago (6 children) Sponsorblock and Return YT Dislikes FTW as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 28 points 3 years ago (2 children) On desktop blocktube has improved things so much too. It has made search results so much better, since YouTube suppresses smaller channels in favor of the same large youtubers depending on the subject. Really wish it could be integrated into mobile YouTube options, but until then my hope is waiting until mobile firefox getting desktop extension support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lupec@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago Glad you brought that up, never heard of it. Thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] kafka_quixote@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 years ago Blocktube looks great Thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] rab@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 years ago (2 children) Does anyone know if the dislikes extension is actually accurate or is it a sort of estimation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] c1177johuk@lemmy.world 23 points 3 years ago For new videos it's an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it's rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users permalink fedilink source parent [–] DavyJones@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago A combination of archived data from before the official YouTube dislike API shut down, and extrapolated extension user behavior. Return YouTube Dislike FAQ permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kushan@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago (17 children) I'm confused, if ublock origin and sponsor block and all those are bypassing this, then who is it actually targeting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] ShittyKopper@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 years ago* (13 children) have you ever searched "ad blocker" on your browser of choice's extension store and scrolled down? or had a cheap/free VPN that advertised ad blocking functionality? those. for some reason people install those. and they never get updates. (some of them are actual malware too) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 22 points 3 years ago (11 children) Not sure what you're on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you're using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn't if they CAN break those things, it's just if they WILL. And if they're beta testing this system right now, I'd say it's just a matter of time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client's end, for example by manipulating the browser's code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it's important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don't want to take YouTube off the web. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Watching all this from the sidelines, I'm very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Lately, I've been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they're starting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They are capable of detecting it because they aren't putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable. Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It's a game of cat and mouse. If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads. Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google's webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I've never seen an anti-adblocker that didn't use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just... Ignore it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 years ago It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this "ad blocker" is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stealin@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago They want to frame it so that internet ID is the solution. That way you as a person can be banned, not just the account or ip. Good luck buying and selling when everything becomes digital and you get banned. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 12 points 3 years ago (1 child) The reason people are talking about this new change is that it will bypass the extensions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Kushan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago I understand that, but look at who I am responding to - they seem to think that they're immune from it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world [S] 62 points 3 years ago (6 children) Sponsorblock and Return YT Dislikes FTW as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 28 points 3 years ago (2 children) On desktop blocktube has improved things so much too. It has made search results so much better, since YouTube suppresses smaller channels in favor of the same large youtubers depending on the subject. Really wish it could be integrated into mobile YouTube options, but until then my hope is waiting until mobile firefox getting desktop extension support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lupec@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago Glad you brought that up, never heard of it. Thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] kafka_quixote@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 years ago Blocktube looks great Thank you permalink fedilink source parent [–] rab@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 years ago (2 children) Does anyone know if the dislikes extension is actually accurate or is it a sort of estimation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] c1177johuk@lemmy.world 23 points 3 years ago For new videos it's an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it's rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users permalink fedilink source parent [–] DavyJones@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago A combination of archived data from before the official YouTube dislike API shut down, and extrapolated extension user behavior. Return YouTube Dislike FAQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 28 points 3 years ago (2 children) On desktop blocktube has improved things so much too. It has made search results so much better, since YouTube suppresses smaller channels in favor of the same large youtubers depending on the subject. Really wish it could be integrated into mobile YouTube options, but until then my hope is waiting until mobile firefox getting desktop extension support. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lupec@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago Glad you brought that up, never heard of it. Thanks! permalink fedilink source parent [–] kafka_quixote@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 years ago Blocktube looks great Thank you permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lupec@lemm.ee 4 points 3 years ago Glad you brought that up, never heard of it. Thanks! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kafka_quixote@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 3 years ago Blocktube looks great Thank you permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rab@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 years ago (2 children) Does anyone know if the dislikes extension is actually accurate or is it a sort of estimation permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] c1177johuk@lemmy.world 23 points 3 years ago For new videos it's an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it's rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users permalink fedilink source parent [–] DavyJones@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago A combination of archived data from before the official YouTube dislike API shut down, and extrapolated extension user behavior. Return YouTube Dislike FAQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] c1177johuk@lemmy.world 23 points 3 years ago For new videos it's an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it's rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DavyJones@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago A combination of archived data from before the official YouTube dislike API shut down, and extrapolated extension user behavior. Return YouTube Dislike FAQ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago (17 children) I'm confused, if ublock origin and sponsor block and all those are bypassing this, then who is it actually targeting? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] ShittyKopper@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 years ago* (13 children) have you ever searched "ad blocker" on your browser of choice's extension store and scrolled down? or had a cheap/free VPN that advertised ad blocking functionality? those. for some reason people install those. and they never get updates. (some of them are actual malware too) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 22 points 3 years ago (11 children) Not sure what you're on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you're using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn't if they CAN break those things, it's just if they WILL. And if they're beta testing this system right now, I'd say it's just a matter of time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client's end, for example by manipulating the browser's code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it's important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don't want to take YouTube off the web. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Watching all this from the sidelines, I'm very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Lately, I've been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they're starting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They are capable of detecting it because they aren't putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable. Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It's a game of cat and mouse. If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads. Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google's webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I've never seen an anti-adblocker that didn't use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just... Ignore it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 years ago It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this "ad blocker" is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages. permalink fedilink source parent [–] stealin@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago They want to frame it so that internet ID is the solution. That way you as a person can be banned, not just the account or ip. Good luck buying and selling when everything becomes digital and you get banned. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 12 points 3 years ago (1 child) The reason people are talking about this new change is that it will bypass the extensions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Kushan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago I understand that, but look at who I am responding to - they seem to think that they're immune from it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShittyKopper@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 years ago* (13 children) have you ever searched "ad blocker" on your browser of choice's extension store and scrolled down? or had a cheap/free VPN that advertised ad blocking functionality? those. for some reason people install those. and they never get updates. (some of them are actual malware too) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 22 points 3 years ago (11 children) Not sure what you're on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you're using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn't if they CAN break those things, it's just if they WILL. And if they're beta testing this system right now, I'd say it's just a matter of time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client's end, for example by manipulating the browser's code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it's important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don't want to take YouTube off the web. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Watching all this from the sidelines, I'm very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Lately, I've been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they're starting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They are capable of detecting it because they aren't putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable. Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It's a game of cat and mouse. If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads. Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google's webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I've never seen an anti-adblocker that didn't use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just... Ignore it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 years ago It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this "ad blocker" is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 22 points 3 years ago (11 children) Not sure what you're on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you're using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn't if they CAN break those things, it's just if they WILL. And if they're beta testing this system right now, I'd say it's just a matter of time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client's end, for example by manipulating the browser's code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it's important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don't want to take YouTube off the web. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Watching all this from the sidelines, I'm very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Lately, I've been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they're starting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They are capable of detecting it because they aren't putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable. Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It's a game of cat and mouse. If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads. Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google's webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I've never seen an anti-adblocker that didn't use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just... Ignore it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't be absolutely sure about this. In the end, everything on the web still boils down to (mostly) simple HTTP GET requests. If you open a webpage, then you are served the file you requested (usually HTML with CSS for styling and JavaScript for special actions) and your browser handles the display of them and the execution of their scripts. This means that you can program a browser to detect and remove ads directly from the code and also eradicate malicious detection scripts potentially employed by Google that are meant to find out whether the ads are displaying correctly. If Google would want to circumvent this, they would either have to make YouTube available solely over their own app or block such behaviour on the client's end, for example by manipulating the browser's code to block ad-blocking functionality. Google is actually pursuing the latter with their Chromium browser, which is also the foundation for some others, including Microsoft Edge. This is why it's important that people start to move away and use Firefox for browsing, THE free/libre software non-profit web solution since decades. Because then Google is essentially powerless, if they don't want to take YouTube off the web. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Making YouTube available solely in their app sounds entirely possible and not unlikely here. They already sorta do that with age-restricted videos and videos that have voluntarily disabled embedding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (1 child) Watching all this from the sidelines, I'm very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 4 points 3 years ago Yeah, I'm glad I already have a cheap annual subscription to Curiosity Stream + Nebula. I'll have to look for some other decent video platforms if they're going to start being dicks about YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago Yep, they are ramping up to disable all of the scripts and extensions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 years ago Lately, I've been getting 403 errors in Newpipe after a video has been playing for about a minute. I think they're starting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) They are capable of detecting it because they aren't putting much effort into being undetectable. If there was a need, uBlock Origin itself could be made entirely undetectable. Of course the YouTube script running in your browser will be able to detect changes made to the page and request blocking. However, the said script can be modified by a different extension to either receive incorrect data about blocked requests and page information, or to send a fabricated result back to the server. Google can react to it by modifying the script, and the extension would need to adapt accordingly. It's a game of cat and mouse. If there was a need, we could have YouTube running in an entirely clean headless browser with no adblockers, while the real browser we use pulls data from it and strips out the ads. Ultimately, currently we have the last word on what happens on our end. Unfortunately, Google's webDRM, pushed by traitors to humanity Ben Wiser, Borbala Benko, Philipp Pfeiffenberge and Sergey Kataev, is trying to change that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago I mean, you could do all sorts of wild shit but at a certain point it's impractical for most people. You think Google has actually put effort into this so far? You haven't seen effort yet, they're just beta testing. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh, they absolutely are capable of telling if you have uBlock Origin installed. However, uBlock is also capable of blocking scripts, so you can make a filter to block whatever part of the scripts on the page it is that detect your adblocker. I've never seen an anti-adblocker that didn't use Javascript, and the great thing about Javascript is that your browser can just... Ignore it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) It would be pretty trivial for them to just block playback completely for any agent that's blocking their ad scripts. Or make their ad videos indistinguishable from the actually video you want. The question isn't CAN they enforce this, it's WILL they enforce this? Thus far we've been succeeding at this cat-and-mouse game simply because the cat is too fat and lazy to chase us. But this cat is looking more hungry and motivated every day....we'll see. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 3 years ago Ad publishers have been in a war with adblockers for a decade now, were it trivial to detect adblockers, they would have already won. This is the sole reason Google has introduced the idea of DRM for websites. In fact, the only trivial thing is bypassing anti-adblock. There is no anti-adblock that relies upon Javascript that cannot be bypassed without issue. The way Javascript is executed on the user's computer, unobfuscated, means it can be altered in whatever way you want before it is ran. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 years ago It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this "ad blocker" is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] stealin@lemmy.world 21 points 3 years ago They want to frame it so that internet ID is the solution. That way you as a person can be banned, not just the account or ip. Good luck buying and selling when everything becomes digital and you get banned. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mesamunefire@lemmy.world 12 points 3 years ago (1 child) The reason people are talking about this new change is that it will bypass the extensions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Kushan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago I understand that, but look at who I am responding to - they seem to think that they're immune from it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 9 points 3 years ago I understand that, but look at who I am responding to - they seem to think that they're immune from it. permalink fedilink source parent