4 ms·
> the engineers at Google don’t think about it It’s an almost certainty that they’ve thought of it. This has been a worry for at least over a decade. So there
by LeafItAlone 3y ago
> the engineers at Google don’t think about it
It’s an almost certainty that they’ve thought of it. This has been a worry for at least over a decade. So there must be some reason they “can’t” or don’t want to. Such as getting more valuable interaction data otherwise.
- Kon-Peki 3y ago> So there must be some reason they … don’t want to. …Starting with the fact that it would no longer be user-generated content that provides Google with Section 230 protection.
- mikrotikker 3y agoThe toothless section 230... Will they ever get that particular hammer out of its case?
- MrDrMcCoy 3y agoI would imagine it would be computationally untenable because it would mean the videos have to be re-encoded every time the ads need to be changed, which would be frequent enough to be very expensive. Plus, I'm not sure if they keep the original videos stored somewhere to re-use as a source to prevent degradation from re-encoding.
- chii 3y agoi would imagine the video stream is spliced, such that the ad video stream is spliced into an existing pre-encoded video stream, may be between some keyframes or some such. This is how most livestreams works today - you have separate chunks of video streams that are spliced together. The only real problem is if the end user can detect (reliably) where a splice _could_ happen, they can just ignore the spliced video. This is what some old twitch adblocking methods did iirc - and just show a blank screen.
- wodenokoto 3y agoBut the videos are streamed to the users. So on the backend the could switch source back and forth and feed everything through the same endpoint
- kccqzy 3y agoNope. Look up HLS or DASH.