5 ms·

Do you have some legal references to this? Curious. The site also has the legal right to refuse to serve you content, of course.

• kuschku 9y ago
  ArsTechnica had a list of 6 of the recent court cases between AdBlock Plus and media corporations: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/adblock-plus-wins-its-6th-court-case-brought-by-der-spiegel/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/adblock-plus-win... There’s been countless cases brought against ad blockers, and all that were about ad blocking, were decided favourable for the blockers.
  • Touche 9y ago
    What does any of this have to do with YouTube blocking PIP?
    • kuschku 9y ago
      Simple, it means that if the browser would decide to force YouTube into allowing PIP, that would be the browsers legal (and moral right). Additionally, there’s a precedent that users want to be able to control what a site does, and are willing to take extra steps to achieve this, so a browser should implement such functionality ideally in the first place.
      • Touche 9y ago
        There are already numerous examples where browsers intervene to stop user-hostile pages. The reason pop-up ads largely don't exist any more is because browsers intervened to kill them.
        • kuschku 9y ago
          Exactly, and the same should happen here. Users should be able to force PiP.