Comment on Youtube's Anti-adblock is illegal in the EU

• JasSmith@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

  source

  • ELI70@lemmy.run ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model,

    Couldn’t that claim be countered by pointing out that they already deploy a for pay approach called youtube premium?

    source

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, because businesses have multiple revenue streams. YouTube has a subscription offering, and a free, advertiser-supported offering. Both are part of their business model.

      source

      • ELI70@lemmy.run ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        alright

        source
• Sphks@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There are multiple French websites that do this. It is legal (otherwise these websites would not do this anymore, it’s been a while).
  There is a popup asking you if you consent to get cookies (for advertisement). If you say “no”, it leads you to another popup with two choices :

  • Change your decision and accept cookies
  • Pay for a premium service without advertisements

  source

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That is just because the people who enforce the GDPR just haven’t come around to fining those websites.

    That practice is still illegal.

    Want to speed up the process? You can report those websites. The more reports the faster those get punished.

    source

    • Sphks@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, that’s not that clear for the moment.

      Let me explain the French case :

      • Webedia is a big company that owns most of the famous French websites (jeuxvideo.com , etc.). All these websites have cookie walls with an alternative : a paid subsription. What they say, is that the website is now accessible with subscription only. However, if you accept cookies, you’ll get a discount (free access).
      • The CNIL (a big French governemental entity) tried to forbid this. If someone reports a website, it’s for this entity to take action. There is no need to report Webedia, the CNIL knows already :-)
      • The Conseil d’Etat (juridical entity of the French gov) said that “non”, it’s OK for Webedia to use such paywalls. The CNIL can’t forbid Webedia to use them.
      • The CNIL asked the jusrists at the European level… here we are. We still don’t know.

      Here is a French website where the CNIL explains this :
      cnil.fr/…/cookie-walls-la-cnil-publie-des-premier…

      source

      • harlatan@feddit.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Well, seems like my gdpr knowledge got too rusty. at least to me its an interesting topic to actualise

        source
  • MrPozor@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Same in Germany and Switzerland. I just close the site immediately when I see this kind of blackmailing. Or use 12ft.io if I absolutely want to read the article.

    source