10 ms·

Irish privacy group files complaint against YouTube adblock detection system

85 points by bobse 3y ago

boomboomsubban 3y ago
Non-twitter copy https://eupolicy.social/@thatprivacyguy/111261130799704016 https://eupolicy.social/@thatprivacyguy/111261130799704016
- workfromspace 3y ago
  Or https://nitter.net/alexanderhanff/status/1714944718205755483 https://nitter.net/alexanderhanff/status/1714944718205755483
ziml77 3y ago
If they don't consent then they can stop watching YouTube videos.
- zoul 3y ago
  It’s the other way around. If YouTube doesn’t consent to the rules of EU, they can leave the market.
- telmo 3y ago
  They can indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that YouTube is obliged to follow the laws of the jurisdictions where it operates, and citizens have the right to demand that these laws are upheld.
- sebazzz 3y ago
  Getting Premium is not a workaround at least, because even then it requires disabling the ad blocker.
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    I have Youtube Premium and use uBlock Origin on Youtube. No problems so far.
  - fifteen1506 3y ago
    No it doesn't. At least not until 1 week ago.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    I have premium and use AdBlock to block the "recommended" video suggestions that take up half the player screen for the last 30 seconds of every video.
- hadrien01 3y ago
  Also, if the logic of determining consent under 2002/58/EC is the same as under GDPR, I believe having a paid alternative - YouTube Premium - is legal.
punk_ihaq 3y ago
His argument seems to be that deploying client side JS to detect adblockers requires explicit consent. Here's a critique of that claim. About that claim that detecting Adblock may be illegal (2016): https://blockadblock.com/adblocking/claim-detecting-adblock-may-illegal/ https://blockadblock.com/adblocking/claim-detecting-adblock-...
- zzo38computer 3y ago
  They say that many other things are detected by JavaScripts. Well, I think, they shouldn't need to be. Just use HTML; the fonts, line wrapping, etc can be set by the user preferences and should not usually need JavaScripts. Some things (e.g. languages) are send by request headers. Some things I think are unnecessary ot undesirable to detect, including screen resolution (only the document viewport size matters, and usually even that should be unnecessary since the client should render the HTML properly anyways), etc. For some sorts of interactive software some things might matter, but screen resolution is not relevant (only the viewport size is relevant), and even then the operating system is probably only relevant if you want to set defaults for which files you want to access (the user should still be allowed to make their own choices). Even, if scripts are disabled a form can still be filled in but some fields might not be auto-calculated.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
aurareturn 3y ago
Quotes from original author: >in order for YouTube to detect the use of adblockers, they are using javascript in the client to detect various behaviours. >The deployment of that js file itself requires consent, the running of the javascript within the browser to ascertain how the browser is behaving also requires consent - there is no other legal basis available under the relevant law. >There is no escape clause here for YouTube, we have EU case law which is binding on all* Member States supporting this.* Wait, what? You got to be kidding me. This law would make it illegal to operate 99% of websites in the world in EU. This just feels like some people don't want to watch ads that makes Youtube free so they're trying to use whatever existing law to try to get Youtube to remove the ads. Youtube is funded by ads. It's their way of keeping the service free. Youtube also pays creators with the ad money. If anything, using an adblocker should be "more" illegal than what Youtube is doing. Can we get some common sense here?
- sublinear 3y ago
  Feed the entire Web API to a WASM binary. General enough to not have intent. Problem solved?
  - salawat 3y ago
    Still requires consent to run on a user's machine if shipped. What Google et al are desperately trying to keep people from waking up to is that they have been treating your computer as theirs for the purposes of profit taking for decades. They've also tried to shape case law to normalize that state of affairs in their favor. Their legal and lobbying departments are there for more than just contract writing.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  More hot takes from the author: that they are unable to come up with a lawful business model is not my (or anyone elses) concern. There is no morality issue here - there is no law which requires us to watch ads and there is no law which forbids us from blocking them (despite decades of lobbying to try to introduce one). Ads are a cancer on society, they are manipulative and create massive social harms. Then just pay for a Youtube Premium account and get all your followers to buy a Youtube Premium account. No one is forcing you to use the ad-supported version of Youtube. This guy never watched ad-supported TV before Netflix? Never made a free Google search? Never used Twitter? He's on Twitter but doesn't pay for the checkmark (not that I like X's approach). Therefore, he's ok using Twitter's ad-supported service. He has a Twitch channel - which is ad-supported mostly. To me, the author is a giant hypocrite. How can I take the author seriously when he's benefiting from ad-supported free services? PS. He asks his followers to donate in crypto. He calls himself an "expensive consultant for hire". It feels like this guy is just trying to stir stuff up to get attention and rile up "privacy at all cost" people to give him donations and hire him. This is the equivalent to Hollywood's "all publicity is good publicity" in my opinion.
mbrumlow 3y ago
This is kind of silly, because the script that "detects" Adblock could simply be a script that detects that the content sent for the provider is rendered correctly. The "detection" could simply be, this <div> that the site created should not be hidden, or should exist at all. Given you specifically are saying "download code and run on my side" I cant' see an any privacy issue. Further more, even if the code was actually detecting if a specific or any ad-blocker was in use, there should be no privacy concern if the information is not send back to the provider and the notification happens on the client side.
- uoaei 3y ago
  > Given you specifically are saying "download code and run on my side" I cant' see an any privacy issue That's not meaningful and informed consent. I can't know what is going to run on my computer before I visit a website. That's like saying I'm legally responsible for malware running on my computer because someone sent me code that I "agreed" to run locally upon clicking a button on a compromised website. Legal precedent by now however disagrees strongly that that's my responsibility.
  - mbrumlow 3y ago
    But that is just it. The act of saying "hey, give me some bytes, and my program will run them" is exactly what you are doing when you view a web page. You are saying "I am going to run this stuff that this IP spits at me". If Gotse shows yup on your screen you have some decisions, do I visit this site again? Or do I maybe not. The same goes with YouTube. You go to it, it shows you something you did not like (or like, no judging), but in this case it is a message saying hey the data we uploaded to you has been tampered with. You got a choice, do you go back to that site? Your argument about legality is on a different level. Sure you might not be legally liable for the code ran, but YOU did say run code that this website sends me. Giving permission doe snot mean assuming liability.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      I have no way of knowing what kind of code the website will run on my computer. I only know what I intend to happen based on my incredibly limited knowledge of what the website "intends" to offer. And there's no guarantee that what the website intends to offer, or my assumptions thereof, align with what ends up happening on my computer. Ergo no one has been given permission to run code on my computer and assume my implicit consent. It is unreasonable to expect users to audit the code sent by websites before they run it. It's a lot to assume the average computer user understands the terms of the agreement as you seem to before they click on a link. Arguably it's too much to assume that, which means the responsibility lies elsewhere. Since in this example there's only two parties (server and user), and the user should not be expected to understand the "agreement" they're participating in, only one other party is present and obviously has perfect knowledge of the code that is going to be served to the user and executed by their computer. Ergo the one with perfect knowledge has the responsibility of making sure the code comports with the intentions of the user. There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them.
oh_sigh 3y ago
The endgame is just Google muxing ads directly into the video feed, so...congrats I guess, freedom preserved?
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Exactly. Google is going to need to show you ads no matter what or charge you a monthly fee. You can dislike Google as much as you want but this is how trade works. Let's get some common sense back.
  - MourYother 3y ago
    I bet you watch every add, but I don't think you can see them well from your overly high horse
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Nope. I pay for YouTube Premium.
- MourYother 3y ago
  Really? The endgame could be pushing ppl towards premium, but even then I don't trust google not to start showing ads for premium users. If AdBlock and sponsorblock fail on yt I'll just leave for nebula.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    What's the selling point of premium if not removing ads?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - MourYother 3y ago
      Once things like attestation roll in, if you are premium user you'll still be able to skip the add after 30s ;)
Analemma_ 3y ago
This isn't an "Irish privacy group", this is one doofus with a Twitter account, a podcast, and a deluded sense of his importance. Ignore and move on.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  He says "ads are cancer to society" but he has an ad-supported Twitter account, Twitch account, and Youtube channel. He asks his followers to donate crypto and calls himself an "expensive consultant for hire". He says Youtube not being able to "come up with a lawful business model is not my (or anyone elses) concern". I guess his idea of a lawful business model is to solicit crypto donations. Yikes.
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    I agree that this sounds sketchy, but crypto donations per se are not unlawful - you pay directly the creator and avoid paying fees like in yt. Question is does he pay taxes for them, but this applies for any income, not just crypto
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      The point is that the author positions himself as a person with high morals but he solicits donations from shady/grey area crypto projects.
      - arbol 3y ago
        Accepting crypto donations does not imply that the donations are shady. It may be cost effective as donations can easily be sent cross border for lower fees than Paypal or whatever.
        aurareturn 3y ago
        I never implied that the donations are shady. I implied that the projects themselves are shady and using them makes me question the author's morals - given that he champions himself as someone who is morally above ad-driven businesses.
anigbrowl 3y ago
I'm sensing a lot of Alphabet employees in this thread XD
- chatmasta 3y ago
  Even YouTube employees use uBlock Origin: https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1714815061326237703 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1714815061326237703
machdiamonds 3y ago
It's crazy to me how entitled some people are. I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads. YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided. It's also funny how many people say they'll stop using YouTube because their ad blockers won't work anymore. This actually just helps YouTube, since they won't have to waste bandwidth on users who don't bring in any revenue.
- lodovic 3y ago
  No. this is like skipping ads on a VCR. It's my computer and I should be able to do whatever I want on it, including blocking all ads that I can. If Google has a problem monetising their video business when I do that, perhaps they need a different business model, instead of forcing these ads down my throat. You make it seem like steeling hard earned revenue from Google. In reality people are just punishing Google for shady business practices. It's a natural consequence of being an ad monopoly combined with an online video monopoly.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- linuxandrew 3y ago
  > I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads I should be able to control my computer and choose what is displayed to me. > YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided YT undercut their rivals and monopolised the market very early on, perhaps illegally, time may tell. I'm sure many users would happily watch their videos elsewhere with different business models and privacy policies but YT largely monopolises the ameteur video market, excluding video shorts like TikTok and it's simply not possible to watch a YT video somewhere else. If only there was a technology that would solve this problem (cough ActivityPub).
- asdff 3y ago
  Sometimes I go to the grocery store and read the paper for 10 minutes without paying. Straight to jail? These companies have plenty of money where they don't need to be scraping the barrel like this. Sucks for them I guess that they work in a space where people have general purpose computers to interface with their content, because that means workarounds and such are just going to be a fact of life if they make the user experience something worth spending time to circumvent.
deno 3y ago
Youtube making it more difficult to watch videos is a good thing. There’s never going to be a competition if everything is forever free. Likewise, if Cloudflare started charging market prices tomorrow I would be elated. Free things are the cancer of the Internet. Everything becomes centralized because of those behemoths losing money but gaining ground, trying to entrench themselves for good.
ge96 3y ago
It's funny the thought did cross my mind to stop using YT. Idk at some point can't write any more code/have to do nothing. Anyway I just read a doc and I'm back to being plugged in.
3seashells 3y ago
Add lockers are mostly used by developers and there relatives. A demographic capable to swiftly alter any digital buisness environment to the worse if agitated. Is it really worth to poke this hornets nest for so little gained? And it's not a question of right and wrong, legal and illegal, more of power and none..
- Ylpertnodi 3y ago
  My power is: it's my computer and I decide what I allow into it.
tticvs 3y ago
Under this legal argument wouldn't youtube just need to add the equivalent of a cookie popup to gain consent? Or switch to a serverside approach?

85 points by bobse 3y ago

Non-twitter copy https://eupolicy.social/@thatprivacyguy/111261130799704016 https://eupolicy.social/@thatprivacyguy/111261130799704016

workfromspace 3y ago
Or https://nitter.net/alexanderhanff/status/1714944718205755483 https://nitter.net/alexanderhanff/status/1714944718205755483

ziml77 3y ago

If they don't consent then they can stop watching YouTube videos.

zoul 3y ago
It’s the other way around. If YouTube doesn’t consent to the rules of EU, they can leave the market.
telmo 3y ago
They can indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that YouTube is obliged to follow the laws of the jurisdictions where it operates, and citizens have the right to demand that these laws are upheld.
sebazzz 3y ago
Getting Premium is not a workaround at least, because even then it requires disabling the ad blocker.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  I have Youtube Premium and use uBlock Origin on Youtube. No problems so far.
- fifteen1506 3y ago
  No it doesn't. At least not until 1 week ago.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  I have premium and use AdBlock to block the "recommended" video suggestions that take up half the player screen for the last 30 seconds of every video.
hadrien01 3y ago
Also, if the logic of determining consent under 2002/58/EC is the same as under GDPR, I believe having a paid alternative - YouTube Premium - is legal.

punk_ihaq 3y ago

His argument seems to be that deploying client side JS to detect adblockers requires explicit consent. Here's a critique of that claim. About that claim that detecting Adblock may be illegal (2016): https://blockadblock.com/adblocking/claim-detecting-adblock-may-illegal/ https://blockadblock.com/adblocking/claim-detecting-adblock-...

zzo38computer 3y ago
They say that many other things are detected by JavaScripts. Well, I think, they shouldn't need to be. Just use HTML; the fonts, line wrapping, etc can be set by the user preferences and should not usually need JavaScripts. Some things (e.g. languages) are send by request headers. Some things I think are unnecessary ot undesirable to detect, including screen resolution (only the document viewport size matters, and usually even that should be unnecessary since the client should render the HTML properly anyways), etc. For some sorts of interactive software some things might matter, but screen resolution is not relevant (only the viewport size is relevant), and even then the operating system is probably only relevant if you want to set defaults for which files you want to access (the user should still be allowed to make their own choices). Even, if scripts are disabled a form can still be filled in but some fields might not be auto-calculated.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

aurareturn 3y ago

Quotes from original author: >in order for YouTube to detect the use of adblockers, they are using javascript in the client to detect various behaviours. >The deployment of that js file itself requires consent, the running of the javascript within the browser to ascertain how the browser is behaving also requires consent - there is no other legal basis available under the relevant law. >There is no escape clause here for YouTube, we have EU case law which is binding on all* Member States supporting this.* Wait, what? You got to be kidding me. This law would make it illegal to operate 99% of websites in the world in EU. This just feels like some people don't want to watch ads that makes Youtube free so they're trying to use whatever existing law to try to get Youtube to remove the ads. Youtube is funded by ads. It's their way of keeping the service free. Youtube also pays creators with the ad money. If anything, using an adblocker should be "more" illegal than what Youtube is doing. Can we get some common sense here?

sublinear 3y ago
Feed the entire Web API to a WASM binary. General enough to not have intent. Problem solved?
- salawat 3y ago
  Still requires consent to run on a user's machine if shipped. What Google et al are desperately trying to keep people from waking up to is that they have been treating your computer as theirs for the purposes of profit taking for decades. They've also tried to shape case law to normalize that state of affairs in their favor. Their legal and lobbying departments are there for more than just contract writing.
aurareturn 3y ago
More hot takes from the author: that they are unable to come up with a lawful business model is not my (or anyone elses) concern. There is no morality issue here - there is no law which requires us to watch ads and there is no law which forbids us from blocking them (despite decades of lobbying to try to introduce one). Ads are a cancer on society, they are manipulative and create massive social harms. Then just pay for a Youtube Premium account and get all your followers to buy a Youtube Premium account. No one is forcing you to use the ad-supported version of Youtube. This guy never watched ad-supported TV before Netflix? Never made a free Google search? Never used Twitter? He's on Twitter but doesn't pay for the checkmark (not that I like X's approach). Therefore, he's ok using Twitter's ad-supported service. He has a Twitch channel - which is ad-supported mostly. To me, the author is a giant hypocrite. How can I take the author seriously when he's benefiting from ad-supported free services? PS. He asks his followers to donate in crypto. He calls himself an "expensive consultant for hire". It feels like this guy is just trying to stir stuff up to get attention and rile up "privacy at all cost" people to give him donations and hire him. This is the equivalent to Hollywood's "all publicity is good publicity" in my opinion.

mbrumlow 3y ago

This is kind of silly, because the script that "detects" Adblock could simply be a script that detects that the content sent for the provider is rendered correctly. The "detection" could simply be, this <div> that the site created should not be hidden, or should exist at all. Given you specifically are saying "download code and run on my side" I cant' see an any privacy issue. Further more, even if the code was actually detecting if a specific or any ad-blocker was in use, there should be no privacy concern if the information is not send back to the provider and the notification happens on the client side.

uoaei 3y ago
> Given you specifically are saying "download code and run on my side" I cant' see an any privacy issue That's not meaningful and informed consent. I can't know what is going to run on my computer before I visit a website. That's like saying I'm legally responsible for malware running on my computer because someone sent me code that I "agreed" to run locally upon clicking a button on a compromised website. Legal precedent by now however disagrees strongly that that's my responsibility.
- mbrumlow 3y ago
  But that is just it. The act of saying "hey, give me some bytes, and my program will run them" is exactly what you are doing when you view a web page. You are saying "I am going to run this stuff that this IP spits at me". If Gotse shows yup on your screen you have some decisions, do I visit this site again? Or do I maybe not. The same goes with YouTube. You go to it, it shows you something you did not like (or like, no judging), but in this case it is a message saying hey the data we uploaded to you has been tampered with. You got a choice, do you go back to that site? Your argument about legality is on a different level. Sure you might not be legally liable for the code ran, but YOU did say run code that this website sends me. Giving permission doe snot mean assuming liability.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    I have no way of knowing what kind of code the website will run on my computer. I only know what I intend to happen based on my incredibly limited knowledge of what the website "intends" to offer. And there's no guarantee that what the website intends to offer, or my assumptions thereof, align with what ends up happening on my computer. Ergo no one has been given permission to run code on my computer and assume my implicit consent. It is unreasonable to expect users to audit the code sent by websites before they run it. It's a lot to assume the average computer user understands the terms of the agreement as you seem to before they click on a link. Arguably it's too much to assume that, which means the responsibility lies elsewhere. Since in this example there's only two parties (server and user), and the user should not be expected to understand the "agreement" they're participating in, only one other party is present and obviously has perfect knowledge of the code that is going to be served to the user and executed by their computer. Ergo the one with perfect knowledge has the responsibility of making sure the code comports with the intentions of the user. There is no justification for the argument that the user must reshape their intentions to mold around what the server ends up providing to them.

oh_sigh 3y ago

The endgame is just Google muxing ads directly into the video feed, so...congrats I guess, freedom preserved?

aurareturn 3y ago
Exactly. Google is going to need to show you ads no matter what or charge you a monthly fee. You can dislike Google as much as you want but this is how trade works. Let's get some common sense back.
- MourYother 3y ago
  I bet you watch every add, but I don't think you can see them well from your overly high horse
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Nope. I pay for YouTube Premium.
MourYother 3y ago
Really? The endgame could be pushing ppl towards premium, but even then I don't trust google not to start showing ads for premium users. If AdBlock and sponsorblock fail on yt I'll just leave for nebula.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  What's the selling point of premium if not removing ads?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - MourYother 3y ago
    Once things like attestation roll in, if you are premium user you'll still be able to skip the add after 30s ;)

Analemma_ 3y ago

This isn't an "Irish privacy group", this is one doofus with a Twitter account, a podcast, and a deluded sense of his importance. Ignore and move on.

aurareturn 3y ago
He says "ads are cancer to society" but he has an ad-supported Twitter account, Twitch account, and Youtube channel. He asks his followers to donate crypto and calls himself an "expensive consultant for hire". He says Youtube not being able to "come up with a lawful business model is not my (or anyone elses) concern". I guess his idea of a lawful business model is to solicit crypto donations. Yikes.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  I agree that this sounds sketchy, but crypto donations per se are not unlawful - you pay directly the creator and avoid paying fees like in yt. Question is does he pay taxes for them, but this applies for any income, not just crypto
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    The point is that the author positions himself as a person with high morals but he solicits donations from shady/grey area crypto projects.
    - arbol 3y ago
      Accepting crypto donations does not imply that the donations are shady. It may be cost effective as donations can easily be sent cross border for lower fees than Paypal or whatever.
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        I never implied that the donations are shady. I implied that the projects themselves are shady and using them makes me question the author's morals - given that he champions himself as someone who is morally above ad-driven businesses.

anigbrowl 3y ago

I'm sensing a lot of Alphabet employees in this thread XD

chatmasta 3y ago
Even YouTube employees use uBlock Origin: https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1714815061326237703 https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1714815061326237703

machdiamonds 3y ago

It's crazy to me how entitled some people are. I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads. YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided. It's also funny how many people say they'll stop using YouTube because their ad blockers won't work anymore. This actually just helps YouTube, since they won't have to waste bandwidth on users who don't bring in any revenue.

lodovic 3y ago
No. this is like skipping ads on a VCR. It's my computer and I should be able to do whatever I want on it, including blocking all ads that I can. If Google has a problem monetising their video business when I do that, perhaps they need a different business model, instead of forcing these ads down my throat. You make it seem like steeling hard earned revenue from Google. In reality people are just punishing Google for shady business practices. It's a natural consequence of being an ad monopoly combined with an online video monopoly.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
linuxandrew 3y ago
> I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads I should be able to control my computer and choose what is displayed to me. > YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided YT undercut their rivals and monopolised the market very early on, perhaps illegally, time may tell. I'm sure many users would happily watch their videos elsewhere with different business models and privacy policies but YT largely monopolises the ameteur video market, excluding video shorts like TikTok and it's simply not possible to watch a YT video somewhere else. If only there was a technology that would solve this problem (cough ActivityPub).
asdff 3y ago
Sometimes I go to the grocery store and read the paper for 10 minutes without paying. Straight to jail? These companies have plenty of money where they don't need to be scraping the barrel like this. Sucks for them I guess that they work in a space where people have general purpose computers to interface with their content, because that means workarounds and such are just going to be a fact of life if they make the user experience something worth spending time to circumvent.

deno 3y ago

Youtube making it more difficult to watch videos is a good thing. There’s never going to be a competition if everything is forever free. Likewise, if Cloudflare started charging market prices tomorrow I would be elated. Free things are the cancer of the Internet. Everything becomes centralized because of those behemoths losing money but gaining ground, trying to entrench themselves for good.

ge96 3y ago

It's funny the thought did cross my mind to stop using YT. Idk at some point can't write any more code/have to do nothing. Anyway I just read a doc and I'm back to being plugged in.

3seashells 3y ago

Add lockers are mostly used by developers and there relatives. A demographic capable to swiftly alter any digital buisness environment to the worse if agitated. Is it really worth to poke this hornets nest for so little gained? And it's not a question of right and wrong, legal and illegal, more of power and none..

Ylpertnodi 3y ago
My power is: it's my computer and I decide what I allow into it.

tticvs 3y ago

Under this legal argument wouldn't youtube just need to add the equivalent of a cookie popup to gain consent? Or switch to a serverside approach?