12 ms·
YouTube's Adblock detection might break the law in the EU
- nash 3y agoThe irony of this being a youtube video is not lost on me.
- dale_glass 3y agoHow does Youtube detect adblock anyway? Is that documented anywhere?
- Dwedit 3y agoIt's not very hard to see when particular web requests did not happen, or particular JS did not execute.
- blibble 3y agoyou can make the request and hide the result from the user
- tekla 3y agoWhich defeats about 75% of the reason to use the adblocker.
- impeplague 3y agoIn the specific case of YouTube, it does not. The content and ads providers are the same.
- graphe 3y agoI'd say closer to 99.9999% of users who can stream YouTube aren't trying to save data and just want to AdBlock.
- blibble 3y agoif there's no other option it's a still infinitely better than seeing HOT SINGLES IN YOUR AREA or another MANSCAPED ad if it gets to that point I wouldn't mind the adblocker even automatically clicking the ad some percentage of the time, just to punish Google
- fxtentacle 3y agoThat's called AdNauseam.
- blibble 3y agonot quite I don't want to punish everyone, only those attempting to coerce me into disabling the ad-blocker
- pavon 3y agoFor something like YouTube it can probably still be detected by timing. If the browser plays part A of a video, then when it is done immediately requests part B of the video, when there is supposed to be a 2 minute gap to play an ad, that can be detected on the server side. The client could try to get around that by doing things like telling the server it is playing at 2x, and then really playback at 1x, but then the server could send different content (pre-downsampled) depending on the playback rate requested.
- dale_glass 3y agoThat doesn't seem to be what is happening, because then uBlock Origin couldn't work around it. Also things like Newpipe and embedding can be used to bypass the block as well. I find all of this weird because it seems all so lacking in fundamentals. I'd expect indeed checking whether the content was actually downloaded. That'd be much harder to work around. In turn that should result in an ad blocker that downloads content but doesn't show it, completing the circle. I think properly doing it would require a specialized web browser, capable of keeping two separate models, one which it pretends to render, and one which is actually renders.
- mrguyorama 3y agoIt is beneficial for Google to drag out any cat and mouse game against ad blockers as long as possible. They are all built and maintained by volunteers, who get yelled at by assholes every time something changes and breaks an ad blocker even for a single night. Google is trying to make this suck for the maintainers, explicitly so they stop maintaining the ad blocker.
- kleiba 3y agoThere was an article posted on that topic here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38061187 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38061187
- codybontecou 3y agoI read somewhere Youtube used to send a response like {..., ads: [1, 2, 3]}. uBlock would see this response and turn it into {..., ads: []} and load the page accordingly. I guess now, Youtube expects a response back, and occasionally, the request/response is faked. So, when uBlock adjusts the request/response and says "This user watched the ads", Youtube knows the request/response was fake and there were no ads to begin with, notifying that user is using an adblocker.
- krackers 3y agoLooking at the filters that uBlock is using, it still seems to be some sort of regex on the xhr request/response body [1]. Why can't youtube trivially defeat this by encrypting everything? It seems like trying to go about the cat-mouse game in this fashion in a losing battle, because all google needs to do is just change up the names a bit each day. [1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/fb33bb3c1fa99db4be4e7a3e9f76ecfe58a25444 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/commit/fb33bb3c1fa99...
- LelouBil 3y ago> It seems like trying to go about the cat-mouse game in this fashion in a losing battle, because all google needs to do is just change up the names a bit each day. That's exactly what they are doing, well I don't know about only "change up the names" but they update the script multiple times per day and uBlock Origin devs are trying to catch up.
- nikanj 3y agoMight* *Actually doesn't
- sonthonax 3y agoI can see you're already being downvoted because Hacker News has a really juvenile attitude to DRM. No one has the right to YouTube (or free media for that matter).
- nkozyra 3y ago> No one has the right to YouTube (or free media for that matter). This is self-evident and we have Terms of Service for exactly this reason. What I think we're debating is what's reasonable reach for Terms of Service to have? Can we violate it by muting ads? Why not? Why is that different in principle than an Adblocker?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vvvvvvvvvvvv 3y ago[flagged]
- mordae 3y ago> Hacker News has a really juvenile attitude to DRM. The door is that way. Anyway. Sure, no one has right to YouTube, but they can't have their cake and eat it too. I think the EU trend is pretty clear: no tracking to make money off our citizens. If you want to sell them a service, go ahead and just name your price. Actually compete instead of giving away stuff for free to undermine competition and then getting the money back by peddling the eyeballs in the back alleys.
- Scion9066 3y agoPrevious discussion of this topic: Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection scripts under EU law https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38050838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38050838
- drexlspivey 3y agoI don't think this argument has any legs. You request a page from a web server, the server gives you back some html and some javascript, you execute the javascript which detects if you are using an adblocker. There is no tracking involved, if you believe the js you got back is spyware you can refrain from running it and you can't watch the vid. Should every website ask for your consent to serve you javascript now?
- mksybr 3y ago> Should every website ask for your consent to serve you javascript now? Ideally, yes.
- gyc 3y agoPlease don't give the EU any more ideas.
- LtWorf 3y agoI could do without js.
- Retr0id 3y agoAs the "cookie consent" debacle showed us, websites won't stop using JS, they'll just bombard you with consent dialogs until you click the button that makes them go away fastest, which is likely the one that involves consenting to run their JS.
- mksybr 3y agoI don't think I've ever seen a cookie consent behave that way, they just make it 1-3 extra clicks to refuse non-essential cookies; which is in violation.
- mrguyorama 3y agoA reminder that the "cookie consent debacle" is intentional. There is no requirement for a popup or any system to ask for your consent to store cookies if you simply do not store unnecessary cookies, and the carve out for "necessary" cookies is huge. Every time you see a popup to approve cookies, it is explicitly so a company can beg you to allow them to track you for free money.
- Scion9066 3y agoFrom the linked EU memo in the YouTube description: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_17_17 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_1... Can users still use ad blockers? The proposal does not regulate the use of ad blockers. Users have the freedom to install software on their devices that disables the display of advertisement. At the same time, the Commission is aware that 'free' content on the internet is often funded by advertisement revenue. Therefore, the proposal allows website providers to check if the end-user's device is able to receive their content, including advertisement, without obtaining the end-user's consent. If a website provider notes that not all content can be received by the end-user, it is up to the website provider to respond appropriately, for example by asking end-users if they use an ad-blocker and would be willing to switch it off for the respective website.
- wnevets 3y agoSounds like this video is trash then?
- jonplackett 3y agoDepends on the definition of 'appropriately' really doesn't it.
- Scion9066 3y agoThe video is what had a link to the memo and is what pointed out the apparent contradiction. The memo is from half a decade ago and what alexanderhanff was able to get them to say in the referenced letter was separate[0]. It will probably need to be decided more definitively in court or by some commission somewhere, since it seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. [0]: https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072 https://twitter.com/alexanderhanff/status/722861362607747072
- exxos 3y ago[dead]
- tokai 3y agoAre people actually getting blocked? I saw the adblock-block popup once, and after flushing the cache and updating filters of my adblocker I haven't had any issues using yt since. Am I just in a lucky A/B group or is the detection and blockage actually that toothless?
- LelouBil 3y agoYouTube updates the script multiple times per day and uBlock Origin devs are fighting back, but they will always be a little bit behind. Maybe you didn't try to play videos when they didn't update their fix yet.
- nwoli 3y agoI’m getting fully blocked. I barely mind it anymore though, it basically acts as a great procrastination block. (I think there’s work around a like that embedded videos still work but I like reducing the amount.)
- willsmith72 3y agoThis is why I'm surprised by their tactics. Google is SO data driven, and many people's objectives are going to be impacted by the reduced watch time. They're going to have to (or already have) modify the objectives of many, many employees
- over_bridge 3y agoPremium was the worst purchase I ever made. I used to scroll shorts on my phone until my rage towards ads was strong enough to overpower my desire to continue. Now there's no release valve. I should go cancel it actually...
- Jaxan 3y agoI get the pop up constantly. But you can just close it and watch the video.
- nkozyra 3y agoCannot watch a video at all with it enabled while in my account. If I go incognito I can. FreeTube for now, I guess.
- adv0r 3y agoif you navigate to elpais.com, they embed youtube videos, and you are required to accept youtube conditions before reproducing the video https://imgur.com/a/m1NAWeC https://imgur.com/a/m1NAWeC
- gotoeleven 3y agoI would happily pay for youtube without ads if I was confident that they wouldn't start putting ads in it anyways like always seems to happen with these services.
- t-writescode 3y agoYou could pay for YouTube Premium until it starts playing ads, then?
- heavyset_go 3y agoEvery single streaming service will eventually converge on showing the same amount of ads consumers have shown they're willing to put up with, and that's the amount of ads that are shown on cable TV. That's about 3 to 7 minutes of ads per 30 minute block[1]. Not showing ads is leaving money on the table, and streaming services are like any other company, they will need continuous return on investment no matter what. They will eventually get that return by showing ads[1], shareholders will demand it. Look at Hulu, Netflix and YouTube. They all show ads now. Netflix previously didn't show ads and now does. Hell, I can't watch a 20-minute YouTube video without watching several minutes of ads. These services' actual clients are the entities that have million/billion dollar advertising budgets, and not individual customers who pay a paltry monthly fee. Even if services start with no/minimal ads to get their foot in the door, they will eventually have to take their advertising partners' money, and those partners will want to show ads. [1] https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/ad-supported-streaming-services-assess-how-many-ads-to-show-viewers/ https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/ad-supported-streaming-serv...
- ThalesX 3y ago[flagged]
- ren_engineer 3y agois Google really that desperate for revenue that they need to do this shit? Comes off as desperate
- amatecha 3y agoThe thirst is real. I imagine no publicly traded company will ever stop nickel & diming to the ultimate degree. Even when you think the maximum level has been reached, they'll find a new way to extract more from users.
- over_bridge 3y agoThe only revenue target they have is 'more'. There's no stable end state where the goal has been achieved. Population declines are really going to end that model in spectacular fashion.
- Ekaros 3y agoDo you want the charts to keep going up? If so yes, they need to do this and more...
- WheatMillington 3y agoWhy should companies be required to offer content to people for free?
- amatecha 3y agoWelll... to be fair, that's literally the only reason the platform got as big as it did, and became "the" ubiquitous video hosting platform. They fronted the cost to capture a massive audience, and now they gradually extract more and more value out of the user base they lured in.
- heavyset_go 3y agoAnd the irony is, of course, that YouTube got off the ground based off of blatant and widespread copyright infringement.
- chung8123 3y agoPeople forget that when Google was buying them there were a bunch of copyright lawsuits again them and most of the major tech companies were scared to pay too much for them. Once the deals with the record labels worked out they found their footing.
- krapp 3y agoBecause they do offer content to people for free, and have for years. And people might actually be willing to put up with ads if they weren't so invasive and obnoxious - static ad banners, for instance, would probably be fine. But interrupting a video every few seconds for several minutes of ads is just ridiculous. Also because the ability for the end user to have complete control over the content the server sends them has been baked into the web since the beginning. You can send your content for free and hope that I choose to view your ads (which I probably wont,) or you can put your content behind a paywall, and hope it's worth paying for (it probably isn't.) What you can't do is send your content for free and just expect me to view your ads, as if the internet were old media like radio or television, where even then, you could skip ads with DVR or just change the channel. It's not our problem corporations thought the web was going to be a gravy train where the rules didn't matter, and they poisoned the well and ruined everything in the process. To hell with all of them, let them burn. We'll go back to sharing videos on torrent or something.
- beanjuiceII 3y agoif EU can stop this adblock i forgive them for GDRP or whatever its called