Google is SO data driven, and many people's objectives are going to be impacted by the reduced watch time.
They're going to have to (or already have) modify the objectives of many, many employees
Maybe you didn't try to play videos when they didn't update their fix yet.
If I go incognito I can.
FreeTube for now, I guess.
There is no tracking involved, if you believe the js you got back is spyware you can refrain from running it and you can't watch the vid. Should every website ask for your consent to serve you javascript now?
Wouldn't that depend on when YouTube starts the "three video" counter? A blanket ban on ad blockers may not violate the law, but their implementation may.
If the page need to load some SPA app, draw the canvas (accessing GPU), or WebUSB, etc, then ask for permission would be a good idea. Just like how accessing ones' camera and mic requires permission. It will force web developers to do less stuff in JS for just display. And if an app type of application is needed, then ask for permission.
Ideally, yes.
If a website doesn’t support your usecase, that’s on you, there is no ADA requirement for JS-free websites
Privacy shouldn't only be afforded to the more technical users.
-----
Turns out that youtube also has:
1) the dominant browser;
2) the same interests as, multiple partnerships with, and very little actual competition with the company that runs the next biggest browser in a walled garden, and
3) been completely funding the development of the browser that continually press releases as if youtube's aims are pure evil and that they are the only opposition.
For example, I did not consent to this y18.svg file that this website has served to me. This is a non-consensual violation of my computational autonomy. Just to put a logo up? Horrific.
I guess now, Youtube expects a response back, and occasionally, the request/response is faked. So, when uBlock adjusts the request/response and says "This user watched the ads", Youtube knows the request/response was fake and there were no ads to begin with, notifying that user is using an adblocker.
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/fb33bb3c1fa99...
That's exactly what they are doing, well I don't know about only "change up the names" but they update the script multiple times per day and uBlock Origin devs are trying to catch up.
Also things like Newpipe and embedding can be used to bypass the block as well.
I find all of this weird because it seems all so lacking in fundamentals. I'd expect indeed checking whether the content was actually downloaded. That'd be much harder to work around.
In turn that should result in an ad blocker that downloads content but doesn't show it, completing the circle.
I think properly doing it would require a specialized web browser, capable of keeping two separate models, one which it pretends to render, and one which is actually renders.
Google is trying to make this suck for the maintainers, explicitly so they stop maintaining the ad blocker.
Also because the ability for the end user to have complete control over the content the server sends them has been baked into the web since the beginning. You can send your content for free and hope that I choose to view your ads (which I probably wont,) or you can put your content behind a paywall, and hope it's worth paying for (it probably isn't.)
What you can't do is send your content for free and just expect me to view your ads, as if the internet were old media like radio or television, where even then, you could skip ads with DVR or just change the channel.
It's not our problem corporations thought the web was going to be a gravy train where the rules didn't matter, and they poisoned the well and ruined everything in the process. To hell with all of them, let them burn. We'll go back to sharing videos on torrent or something.
Not showing ads is leaving money on the table, and streaming services are like any other company, they will need continuous return on investment no matter what. They will eventually get that return by showing ads[1], shareholders will demand it.
Look at Hulu, Netflix and YouTube. They all show ads now. Netflix previously didn't show ads and now does. Hell, I can't watch a 20-minute YouTube video without watching several minutes of ads.
These services' actual clients are the entities that have million/billion dollar advertising budgets, and not individual customers who pay a paltry monthly fee. Even if services start with no/minimal ads to get their foot in the door, they will eventually have to take their advertising partners' money, and those partners will want to show ads.
[1] https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/ad-supported-streaming-serv...
Can users still use ad blockers?
The proposal does not regulate the use of ad blockers. Users have the freedom to install software on their devices that disables the display of advertisement. At the same time, the Commission is aware that 'free' content on the internet is often funded by advertisement revenue. Therefore, the proposal allows website providers to check if the end-user's device is able to receive their content, including advertisement, without obtaining the end-user's consent. If a website provider notes that not all content can be received by the end-user, it is up to the website provider to respond appropriately, for example by asking end-users if they use an ad-blocker and would be willing to switch it off for the respective website.
[0]: https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072
*Actually doesn't
No one has the right to YouTube (or free media for that matter).
The door is that way.
Anyway. Sure, no one has right to YouTube, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. I think the EU trend is pretty clear: no tracking to make money off our citizens. If you want to sell them a service, go ahead and just name your price. Actually compete instead of giving away stuff for free to undermine competition and then getting the money back by peddling the eyeballs in the back alleys.
This is self-evident and we have Terms of Service for exactly this reason. What I think we're debating is what's reasonable reach for Terms of Service to have? Can we violate it by muting ads? Why not? Why is that different in principle than an Adblocker?
Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection scripts under EU law
