1276
Google admits it's making YouTube worse for ad block users (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
312 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 321 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] 101 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 73 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's exactly what I said, yeah

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 71 points 2 years 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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Me reading you:

    Fourth gosh darn level of agree

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years 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."

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 74 points 2 years 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.

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years 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

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years 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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Client side DRM is coming.

    They’re mostly there on Android already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)