• Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The EU ruling was in 2016, well before Brexit happened in 2019, so we should have the same law.

  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like they’re eventually just going to embed the adverts directly into the video streams. No more automated blocking, even downloading will make you see ads. Sure, you can fast forward the video a bit, but it will be annoying enough that you’ll see and hear a few seconds of ads each time, and you won’t be able to just leave it running while you do other things.

      • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        the reason they are not doing it is because the ads are personalized. So if they want to bake an ad onto a video they will end up with countless videos each on with their own unique ads which is not viable logistically. So they can only do it on-the-fly. But re-encoding each video on-the-fly for each user is also a nightmare logistically, if not impossible at all.

          • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            isn’t this more or less what they’re doing now? The difference is that the ads are coming from different server and have an overlay on top with a timer and a skip. As long as the ads are coming from a different server they will be detectable. Also as long as the ads have overlays they are also detectable. They would need to make the ads be served from the same server that serves the video and eliminate the overlays.

            • shrugal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              We could build a public database (like SponsorBlock) of known ad video slices and detect them that way.

                • TauZero@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s why Google is pushing hard their Web Environment Integrity. It’s DRM for the browser! They want the TPM chip in your computer to attest that the code running processing the video stream is authentic. Then you can’t slice out the ads because you do not have physical access to the inside of TPM. With HDCP encryption on the HDMI video output, you gonna need to point a literal video camera at the physical screen to DVR the video and slice out the ads later.

                  They’ve been working hard for decades to lock down the video pipeline with TPM and HDCP and now WEI. They said “don’t worry about it” and we let them. They are really close to snapping the trap shut!

                  Now please excuse me, my tongue is falling off with all the acronyms…

    • ugjka@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

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

  • Demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

  • Chefdano3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    … We’re gonna get another cookie click-through, aren’t we?

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So is this basically saying youtube isn’t allowed to detect an adblocker?

    I’m not sure I really follow why that specifically is something they’re policing.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It about device detection and privacy. Websites in the EU aren’t allowed to scan your hardware or software without your permission, to protect the users privacy. Adblockers fall under this.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As I understand it, detecting an adblocker is a form of fingerprinting. Fingerprinting like this is a privacy violation unless there is first a consent process.

      The outcome of this will be that consent for the detecting will be added to the TOS or as a modal and failing to consent will give up access to the service. It won’t change Youtube’s behavior, I don’t think. But it could result in users being able to opt out of the anti-adblock… just that it also might be opting out of all of YouTube when they do it.

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fine. We all agree ads sucks. But I struggle to understand why you people keep fighting against a company while simultaneously being apparently so addicted to their products. Just do yourself a favor and stop using it altogether.

  • florge@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Flaimbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their precedent is that they sold our data for 20 years before this and are now the biggest company in the world, so they can go pound sand.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don’t “sell” user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it’s not in their interest to sell it.

  • jecxjo@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m all for personal freedoms but you’re getting a service you pay no money for and then get pissed that they are getting the money out of you another way. Sound like people being petty.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is YouTube detecting adblockers? Wouldn’t it be with the information the user’s browser is already passing to them?