Youtube's Anti-adblock is illegal in the EU

Comments

• Darkhoof@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  So many corporate bootlickers here, damn.

  source

  • TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In the second quarter of 2023, Google’s revenue amounted to over 74.3 billion U.S. dollars, up from the 69.1 billion U.S. dollars registered in the same quarter a year prior.

    But man if we don’t pay for youtube premium how will they survive?

    source

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      that’s google not youtube though, is it? i think youtube is running at a loss still + in a normal country that shit should have been blasted apart already way too many shit is under google.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • 7Sea_Sailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The amount of money they made is entirely meaningless without knowing their spending.

      source
    • Same@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Revenue isn’t profit?

      source
  • Supervisor194@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ll say it again: Google pays 5-year-old “influencers” millions of dollars. They have always harvested your data to provide these free services - selling ads was just icing. They still harvest your data and sell ads and they still make the same money they’ve always made - only now they are insisting that everyone watch ads or pay for it as well. And of course, eventually YouTube will insist that you watch ads and pay for it. This is the equivalent of “network decay” for streaming services. This is unreasonable and while there are exceptions to the rule, most people have the same reaction to what Google is doing here: surprise, and dismay, if not outright anger and disgust.

    Yet every single thread about it on the Internet is utterly overflowing with people lecturing us about how we shouldn’t expect something for nothing, as if we aren’t fully aware that this is the most transparent of straw men. These people insist that we are the problem for daring to block ads - and further - that we should be thrilled to pay Google for this content, as they are. And they are! They just can’t get enough of paying Google for YouTube! It’s morally upright, it’s the best experience available and money flows so freely for everyone these days, we should all be so lucky to be able to enjoy paying Google the way they do. And of course it’s all so organic, these comments.

    Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

    source

    • olmec@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s assume Youtube follows your advice, and stops showing ads on YouTube. Data collection is the only source of revenue. How does YouTube make money on that data? Be specific please. Who is buying the data, and what is the buyer going to do the data besides show you a targeted ad?

      source
    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      selling ads was just icing

      You’re talking about these as if they’re separate things. Literally no company in existence harvests your data for any reason other than to serve better ads or to drive business decisions internally. Nobody gives a shit about your data otherwise. Ads are literally the only reason.

      source
    • PurplePropagule@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

      Oh hey you put this part in before being downvoted this time lmao. If you think it’s worth googles time to be astroturfing on fucking lemmy, you have a couple screws loose lmfao.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • kameecoding@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      did you just tey to pre-emptively suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a google paid shill?

      Because if so I would like to know where I can apply for my payment from Google.

      I think any reasonable person knows by now that if you don’t “pay for a product you sre the product”, everyone knows youtube collects data and sells it and your eyes to advertisers that’s their business model, guess what those servers youtube runs on? aren’t free, as you yourself said, content creators aren’t free, the engineers working on YouTube aren’t free, so your suggestion is that despite this, youtube should still be free and ad/data collection free.

      well do tell me, how long do you think youtube will last with your business model?

      source
  • ubermeisters@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    OMG but the people I base my entire personality on use that platform, ergo, everyone needs to vicariously support me thought them, and any maneuver to the contrary is an attack on the very core of my essence!

    -ITT

    source
  • LemmyIsFantastic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Everyone I don’t agree with == bootlicker 🙄

    source

    • yoz@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Image

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I honestly don’t really care if people adblock or not but I think people need to acknowledge that adblock is essentially piracy. That doesn’t make it inherently bad or good but it has the same impacts as piracy at the end of the day. It’s a useful tool to use when companies start to get unreasonable but especially in the case of YouTube it impacts the amount of money the people who make the content earn.

    source

    • lorez@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      But piracy has no impact at all. Pirates never wanted to buy your stuff.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • gian@lemmy.grys.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I honestly don’t really care if people adblock or not but I think people need to acknowledge that adblock is essentially piracy.

      The same way it is piracy to go to the bathroom during the commercials…

      Look, the problem at hand is not if people use adblocker or not, the problem here is how Google check if you are using adblocker or not, which seems to be illegal.

      Well, the full “check for adblocker” things seems to be illegal in EU, whatever way it is used, given a sentence from 2016

      source
    • dan1101@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t think it’s piracy exactly but I fully realize there would not be a huge video site like YouTube without ads or limiting it to paid subscribers.

      source
  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    We must trust our corporate overlords who will use AI to guide us in their right direction.

    source
• Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world ⁨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.

  source

  • ugjka@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • noodlejetski@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      shoutout to Consent-O-Matic! addons.mozilla.org/en-US/…/consent-o-matic/

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • fraydabson@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yay for ublocks annoyance pop up blocker. No more cookie pop ups

      source
  • gian@lemmy.grys.it ⁨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.

    Nope, the point is that, at the moment, Google seems to look where it should not look to know if a user has an adblocker and they don’t ask for permission.

    Let put it in another way: Google need to have my permission to look into my device.

    But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads.

    Which is fine as long as Google can decide that I am using an adblocker without violating any law, which is pretty hard.

    Of course Google could decide that it is better to leave EU and it law that protect the users, but is it a smart move from a company point of view ?

    source

    • krellor@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      All they need to implement ad block detection is user consent, which they likely cover on their terms of service and privacy policy.

      Source

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Ha ha no. Google needs you more than you need google.

    > but but but the ads moneh

    If google made so much money from ads, they wouldn’t care if you watched it at all. They want your consumerist data and they can’t get it with adblock.

    > but but but muh creators

    Most major creators have complained about google shafting them with schizo rules about monetization. The biggers ones have started to sell merch and use other platforms as insurance. You watching those ads gives google more benefits than the creators.

    Youtube is NOT essential. You can live without youtube. Simply follow the creators you like on other platforms. If you’re a creator, time to diversify your platform. The iceberg is sighted and it’s time to jump ship.

    source

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Google DOES make money from ads. Why the fuck else would they need your data other than to serve better ads???

      source
  • Xabis@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The guy really exudes “don’t you know who I am?” energy. Which is a shame since it detracts from the discussion.

    source
  • MooseBoys@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not even clear to me that the mechanism they’re using today is problematic. I don’t know what it is, but the author seems to think they do but aren’t sharing details beyond “trust me bro”. I agree that some kind of inspection-based detection might run afoul of the law, but I don’t see why that’s necessary. All you need to know is that the client is requesting videos without any of the ad requests making it through, which is entirely server-side.

    source

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Exactly.

      But people are hell bent on “Google doing this, bad”.

      source
  • plz1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Won’t cost them anything near weeks of dev time. They can just write it into their terms of service and prompt you to re-accept those next time you access the site.

    source

    • ugjka@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Afaik you can’t bypass laws and regulations with ToS

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Blackmist@feddit.uk ⁨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.

    source

    • gohixo9650@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • shrugal@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Have you met my friend SponsorBlock?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      They can’t do that because of YouTube premium. They know they’re making a lot of money from people who don’t want to see ads.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They could easily put a “consent” requirement to access

    source
  • Broodjefissa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    And in the war you probably also sided with the Nazis because ‘well they invaded already, might as well give up’

    source
• HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨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

  source

  • twotone@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Don’t be an asshole and blame regular people for shit like this. This is because of big tech

    source

    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Actually I will, because big Tech used to be on the level because they knew they would be called out for fuckery. Then Facebook brought the Baby Boomers online and it was the Eternal September on steroids.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This is the same chicken / egg thing as plastic pollutions.

      Sure consumers choice of whether to discard or recycle a plastic straw is nothing compared to the decisions of corporations, but then consumers invest in those companies, buy their products, and elect representatives who do not hold them accountable.

      Big tech has ruined the internet because people were willing to trade their privacy and their attention in order to watch gifs of cats playing the piano. I’m not “blaming” people for that - hell, I was one of them, but you can’t solve the problem without understanding how it’s perpetuated.

      source
    • LogarithmicCamel@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The normies support big tech, they love it. They probably work for big tech, or wish they did, or at least imagine themselves as the next Elon Musk.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • CaptainProton@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Strictly speaking, management at Big Tech are all normies and they make the decisions.

      I think the point is solid: non-tech-people sell capabilities to other non-tech-people to make money, and this forms a feedback loop and drives direction. A non-big-tech world is wildly different because it’s more like tech people building an environment for doing things with other tech people.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • scottywh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      “Don’t be an asshole”? As a response to a two sentence statement.

      I think you’re the fucking asshole regardless of how much blame “big tech” and corporations in general bear here.

      Slow the fuck down.

      source
  • Rengoku@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The same EU that threaten E2EE?

    source

    • matz_e@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The EU has its faults, too, like this BS about sacrificing encryption. Overall, there seem to be a lot of benefits reigning in big companies, though.

      Who else is looking out for their citizens? I think some congresspeople in the US ask tough questions, but in the end, business just goes on as usual.

      source
  • DudeDudenson@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not the sheep’s fault they’re led to the meat grinder

    source

    • mitrosus@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If a private company has to succeed, it has to offer things** that normies want.** FB/G is shit because this is what normies consume - the ego-display, the dopamine kick. In every enshittification of a service, there is a history of it being cravingly indulged by the mass. Now when the companies started rising up and used their monopoly, they (the normies) are realizing they have been shit-eating for a long time. One may argue the companies were not so in the beginning, but that would be a very myopic view.

      source
    • HawlSera@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Normally it wouldn’t be, but these sheep were told “Do not go to this farm or you will be cooked.” and responded with “Pffft, that’ll happen to the other guy…” or “Pfft you’re just whining because you expect everything just handed to you”

      source
    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      But they weren’t led. They were convinced by big tech. But in the end they choose to go into the meat grinder themselves.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “Normies”? Seriously?

    Because “normies” are responsible for the entshitification of the Internet right?

    source

    • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      As much as I loathe that term, it could be argued that they indirectly are.

      The massive increase in the amount of people online made it profitable for companies to be online. Lack of regulations and the inability for regulators to keep up with technological advancements allowed companies to maximize profits at the expense of everything else. The complete inability of government to prevent monetary influence on legislature has prevented good regulations from developing. The fact that the average person online uses maybe five websites in total and doesn’t engage further means that most issues fly under the radar of the average person, which limits the ability of any significant amount of constituents to pressure the politicians supposedly representing them to do better, and limits the overall impact of any movement away from shitty sites to better ones.

      It’s a tangled yarn ball, but one that would struggle to exist without a majority of people to pull money from who just do not care about any of the shit that people more deeply invested in the internet care about.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • random65837@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    They’re also trying to wiretap the whole thing… pay attention to EVERYTHING that’s in a bill, not just the clickbait stuff you agree with.

    source
• florge@feddit.uk ⁨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.

  source

  • blargerer@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.

    source

    • Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Do you have a link to the EU requiring consent to detect ad blocking?

      Most of what I can find is from the late 2010s but specifically says that consent is not required for adblock detection. adguard.com/…/eu-defines-its-stance-on-ad-blocker…

      iabeurope.eu/…/20160516-IABEU_Guidance_AdBlockerD…

      But also: I assume consent can be obtained with a mandatory TOS update.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Also required should be YouTube accepting liability for damage done by malicious ads or hacks inhecting malware onto user systems via ad infeastructure.

    source
  • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social ⁨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.

    source
  • original_reader@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Call me naive, but doing something illegal is never OK in the eyes of the law, whether I deem it necessary or not. I would have to receive a legal exception to the rule, as it were. As it stands, it’s illegal.

    source
  • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s a very good point. I’m not very aware of EU regulations, I wonder if there has been established precedent in court

    source
• Klystron@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Every tech article I read nowadays I feel like has the appendix, “which is illegal in the EU.” Lol

  source

  • asbestos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The only thing still preventing mayhem along with California

    source
• Chefdano3@lemm.ee ⁨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.

  source

  • harlatan@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    that would be illegal too, because that information is not strictly necessary for their service - they could only opt to not provide the service in the eu

    source
  • ElBarto@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Nothing more fun than having to go through some websites shitty settings to toggle everything off.

    source
  • ddkman@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Still a curveball. Collecting your data and having to say ot to your face are not the same.

    source
• demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨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

  source

  • pineapplelover@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The only government actually doing shit. *Also, California

    source
• TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Thank fuck for EU and GDPR

  source

  • Hasuris@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “when has the EU ever done anything for us”

    source
• Pxtl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• fne8w2ah@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Another three cheers for the EU! 🇪🇺🍻🥂

  source
• _bac@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I am not paying for Premium again until they bring the dislike button back.

  source
• spiderman@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  EU to the rescue again!

  source
• SneakyWeasel@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Don’t ask how, but my dad found out that at least with Ublock, cleaning the cache in the addon makes it bypass the stupid pop-up.

  source
• nicknoxx@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  As an English person I thought yay that means us. Then I remembered. . .

  source
• AnonTwo@kbin.social ⁨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.

  source
• wizzor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You should all go file a complaint with a data protection agency.

  The thread in the linked social network suggests concentrating the complaints to the Irish DPC: forms.dataprotection.ie/contact

  source
• mr_satan@monyet.cc ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  And then we have Chat control V2…

  source
• Engywuck@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Fine. 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.

  source
• RealFknNito@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I’m all about sailing the seven seas, yar har, but at some point the time spent trying to circumvent ads exceeds the $15. Support the people you watch. Hell, I pirate games and if I like it I’ll buy it later. There’s a difference between not getting taken advantage of by corporations and just straight screwing over people trying to make a living.

  source
• elouboub@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  While I kinda sympathise, I won't be filing a complaint. I want Youtube to become so shit that even the average user will start looking for alternatives. I want ads plastered everywhere on that site and adblockers to fail miserably at blocking them. I want the average user to be so bothered by the ads that when they stumble upon an alternative they try and convince people to switch. I want content creators to be so bothered by it that they make videos promoting the use of another service.

  Make this a competition for alternatives. Don't make it easy for users to stay on Youtube.

  source
• InternetTubes@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This isn’t the solution people think it is. The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site. That is, assuming Alexander Hanff, the one carrying on this narrative since 2016, is correct and interpreted the response correctly. In Article 5 of the 2002/58/EC there is a second paragraph that states the following:

  Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications and the related traffic data when carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.

  I’m no lawyer, but I tell you who has them in droves, Google and YouTube. I’m not sure how a two page reply from the EU commission to his request telling him Article 5 applies really helps the guy out if Article 5 also includes the means by which YouTube is allowed to run adblocks. Yet, assuming Alexander Hanff is right, again, goto start of comment, so it seems to me it is damned if it is right, damned if it isn’t right.

  source
• BaldProphet@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The way the guy was flexing about being an "expert", while it may or may not be true (I haven't independently verified his credentials), is extremely offputting. Refusing to engage with hecklers is a better policy than flexing with your education, credentials, and experience.

  source
• hiramfromthechi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  SIUUU EUUU

  source
• WalkableProgrammer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I think the internet is turning to shit and that Google/Youtube is greedy like every other conglomerate.

  But… they have to get something from people using there services. I personally use YouTube like an iPad kid so I have premium. I like the EUs tech laws but I don’t think they should rule that a computer can’t push ads (assuming the ads are not malicious)

  source
• dan1101@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

  source
• frequenttimetraveler@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  This is frivolous and ridiculous.

  If europeans had spent as much time building youtube competitors as they spent trying to find holes to litigate, europe would be richer

  source
• jecxjo@midwest.social ⁨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.

  source
• A2PKXG@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Do you wish for more consent popups or do you hope that youtube is afraid of causing friction and will go back to how things were?

  source
• eek2121@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  uBlock Origin has no issues with blocking ads.

  I get trying to fight it via legal means, but it is a solved problem.

  source