- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- hackernews@derp.foo
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- hackernews@derp.foo
You must log in or register to comment.
YouTube is going to lose this battle lol.
Both from a legal standpoint and the fact that adblockers WILL adapt
So, they’ve already won. They just haven’t turned on the nuclear option yet.
They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome, it is a way for them to disallow access to YouTube and other services via anything but an approved browser. This would include approved extensions.
So I’ll use something that isn’t chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube. Making chrome and chrome derivatives via its Internet drm the only option.
A monopoly trying to lock in browsers isn’t going to last in the EU.
Or even the US. Microsoft lost that one in the late 90s.
They killed Netscape and had to put in a toggle with the option of other browsers like 10 years later. They paid next to nothing in fines and legal battles, basically putting a stranglehold on the internet itself that took another 10 to kinda of undo.
Not sure if that’s a “loss.”
Wrong decade. We’re talking about having internet explorer pre installed on windows 95 and 98. It was a really big antitrust thing.
microsoft is pulling all their dirty tricks from the 90s unchecked rn.
Ehh maybe, widevine exists for drm already. They will just claim its an extension of that.
Anti-trust lawsuit in 3… 2…
I hope they get annihilated by that lawsuit.
They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome
This will be legally challenged later, if it is not opt-in.
Eh, probably. But it’s for fighting those darned internet pirates, and the only body that seems to protect us anymore, the eu, seems to be all for that. So I’m.not expecting anything good
What makes you think the EU is for internet monopolies after the DMA?
They are all for copyright protection, the current copyright reform act proposes automatic scanners installed to prevent copywritten content from being displayed without authorization
deleted by creator
Nope i doubt that. Google is ‘to big to fail’ its a fundamental pillar of american force projection in the cyberspace.
I don‘t even worry. Some clever dudes will find a way to spoof Chrome with a Firefox extension
It’s a drm system, so we’re talking end to end encryption from server to display, but for evil. It’s not a spoof thing
Even in the US, a corporate monopoly trying to force people to use their browser will trigger an antitrust lawsuit from the government. Microsoft has already faced one for what they did with Edge, and they didn’t even do DRM.
Besides, it’s YouTube. If you can’t use it anymore, it’s not gonna be the end of the world.
It’s not that simple, it’s not forcing everyone to use chrome, it’s denying access to copyrighted material to drmed browsers only. This is something that already happens and no one seems to want to break things up around that. Infaft they seem to legislate more for that.
And sure today it’s youtube, but this is actually a form of drm for everything. Today youtube tomorrow everything else.
we’re going to go back to needing “apps” for everything on desktops soon. desktop covered in shortcuts for every shitty service we need to use.
God this passes me off
If they want their services to instantly die, sure.
Ah, you forget that the general population is perfectly OK with inconveniences.
Majority of people already use chrome
People are acting as if losing YouTube and other Google services is the end of the world. It is not. You don’t need Google, even if you use Android.
That would be easy to challenge under the same reasoning as what’s in the article, not to mention various anti-trust laws and ones covering anti-competitive business practices.
Doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to stop them, but it’s definitely not going to be as easy as them flipping a few switches and saying “watch ads on our browser with no addons or GTFO”.
Most importantly, such a move would kill YouTube as a platform. Removing other browsers from the picture would cut off a majority of their viewers
Safari and chrome have the Web drm already. It’s really just Firefox that gets cut off.
I stopped using Chrome about 3 weeks ago. Used Edge for a while but finding out that is Chromium, I landed back on Firefox after 10 years of not using it. Just moved all my bookmarks and plugins.
Why? Principles the moment people force me to use their software is the moment I leave.
So I’ll use something that isn’t chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube.
Fast track to getting people to stop using YouTube. No service or company is immune to this.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nice imagination.
deleted by creator
Even with Google money?
Not even Microsoft in its monolith days was able to spend enough money to stop a legion of angry nerds with a severe case of “fuck you, you can’t tell me what to do”.
So… Peertube anyone?
Just started and instance 3 days ago. :)
No
Hopefully it would also apply to websites which port scan your computer.
Why adblockers are essential in a nutshell ⤴️
Ironically, that website uses a reader blocker.
Its their platform . its their choice. We don’t have a choice to force them to allow adblockers. There is always a choice to load content after the ads are served . If they go that route then no adblocker can bypass it.
EU bullied sites into showing cookies warnings even on sites outside of EU. In effing Russia of all places too. You’d think, with enough torque, anything can be pushed onto them. Even good things.
Except it’s been shown that doesn’t work by every site ever that tried it and Adblockers still worked.
That funny popup? Yeah doesn’t exist for me. I deleted it on my end within my device and there is nothing YouTube can do about it.
Twitch would like to have a word with you, the ads are still shown even with the latest ublock filters. Google absolutely can shove ads into your face that your ad blocker won’t be able to remove, they just don’t do it for now
I only get the “ad break in progress” screen but it lasts for two fucking minutes Jesus Christ twitch it’s a live stream I’m missing the best part!
Twitch is live streaming which is what probably makes it a challenge to block ads, and the main draw of twitch is watching live content. I’d imagine it’s easier to view content that isn’t live without ads, and people do repost clips after it’s aired where people haven’t encountered ads in contrast to live viewers.
Then look at television piracy where live viewing will have ads, but pirated content is uploaded with it stripped away. Blocking ads will be something YouTube will have to keep fighting endlessly.
As the European law stands and is interpreted, yes we can force them to remove their current implemention
It’s their choice, and I would simply not use YouTube. Access to YouTube specifically is not very concerning to me.
But if they try to normalize this or even attempt to influence legislators that adblockers should be restricted in any way by law, then I would be concerned, and for this reason I think it’s important to articulate right now that there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about using an adblocker.
What are you talking about? There’s all sorts of ways to bypass the ads
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Interview Last week, privacy advocate (and very occasional Reg columnist) Alexander Hanff filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) decrying YouTube’s deployment of JavaScript code to detect the use of ad blocking extensions by website visitors.
YouTube’s open hostility to ad blockers coincides with the recent trial deployment of a popup notice presented to web users who visit the site with an ad-blocking extension in their browser – messaging tested on a limited audience at least as far back as May.
“In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification over the application of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and whether or not consent would be required for all access to or storage of information on an end user’s device which was not strictly necessary,” Hanff told The Register.
"Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher).
Hanff disagrees, and maintains that "The Commission and the legislators have been very clear that any access to a user’s terminal equipment which is not strictly necessary for the provision of a requested service, requires consent.
“This is also bound by CJEU Case C-673/17 (Planet49) from October 2019 which all Member States are legally obligated to comply with, under the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] – there is no room for deviation on this issue,” he elaborated.
The original article contains 1,030 words, the summary contains 258 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
good bot
I filed the same complaint at the Austrian data privacy agency and asked them to coordinate with the Irish one. You should do the same in your European nation.
Anyone have family call them after finding out blocking ads on YT is even possible?
I think all this is causing a bit of Streisand effect. Now even more will be blocking ads.
Just for your info, There are alternative YouTube clients that allow you to bypass all the ads. Working great on Windows and Android. When you update uBlock Origin, it works on browsers as well.
