787
Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies. (www.engadget.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
253 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.::YouTube's dramatic content gatekeeping decisions of late have a long history behind them, and there's an equally long history of these defenses being bypassed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Um, No. Basically everything affects you subconsciously in some way. Both good and bad. That is a terrible and unenforceable thing to make illegal.

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

    Have you tried to find a principle by which one can filter out this particular thing (advertising namely)? Like the "25th cadre" etc. Before saying it's unenforceable and terrible to make illegal.

    There are regulations about what you can and can't put into edible products. There are regulations about what you can and can't use as fuel. There are regulations on materials used in construction, so that they wouldn't be as toxic as 50 years ago, on paints, on glue and what not.

    Though, of course, there's a solution from another direction which is fundamentally better, simply abolishing trademark laws. But that'd be kinda revolutionary and highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.

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

    Sorry, I was more talking about this in particular:

    Well, things affecting you unconsciously should be plain illegal

    It is far too general a statement to be enforceable. There are things you can better enforce that focus on the negative effects of marketing, but things affecting you unconsciously is to vague and affects both positive and negative behaviours.

    There are regulations about what you can and can’t put into edible products. There are regulations about what you can and can’t use as fuel. There are regulations on materials used in construction, so that they wouldn’t be as toxic as 50 years ago, on paints, on glue and what not.

    These are all specific things though, not general broad reaching unenforceable statements. Which I agree with, there is a lot you can do with regulation that prevents bad behaviours of corporations, but these are generally specific things that are trying to solve some actual problem. And in this case you need to specific what things you are trying to prevent.

    Even for just adverts, trying to ban all adverts that affect you unconsciously would be a ban on all adverts and marketing. Is that reasonable? I would not say so. It would be better to go after specific things like the regulations around advertising cigarettes. Or more relevant to today, maybe something around the shear amount of information advertising agency collect on you, IMO that is one of the bigger problems with them these days. Or the shear number of them that you get shoved into every aspect. Or putting adverts in products that you have already paid for. Those would be far more reasonable things that you could enforce.

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

    Even for just adverts, trying to ban all adverts that affect you unconsciously would be a ban on all adverts and marketing. Is that reasonable? I would not say so.

    I would. Never in my life has an advert made me buy anything I need.

    When you need something, you go and find it. And when it finds you, then it needs you and not vice versa.

    When the process is "I identify a need, I look for something matching characteristics I need and then I purchase it", the results are better than it is "I look at something and suddenly have an urge to buy it most likely formed by many adverts seen, heard etc", in the latter situation I usually realize that I didn't need the thing at all.

    Thus adverts belong to expositions and catalogues and lists you go and find, and not anywhere else.

    Depends on your legal preferences, of course. Most of my life I'm a libertarian, so naturally against banning anything consensual, but also against trademark protection, and abolishing trademark protection would reduce the usefulness of ads.

    Or more relevant to today, maybe something around the shear amount of information advertising agency collect on you, IMO that is one of the bigger problems with them these days.

    Can't fight that anyway.

    Or the shear number of them that you get shoved into every aspect.

    I have a better idea - you can be required to watch through ads to get to the page\video\etc you've come for, but don't get stuffed with them in the middle, that becomes illegal. Like those license agreements for software which nobody reads.

    IRL that would be - no big unavoidable ads on billboards, but you can come to something like a gazette stand and look through brochures.

    The point is that if you look at an advert, you do that consciously, with intention to do just that.

    That's even explainable to geriatric lawmakers.

    Or putting adverts in products that you have already paid for.

    Yes, that's a good idea and an already popular one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent