3 ms·
It's sad, but I don't see a future where Google doesn't close that loophole eventually. And probably sooner rather than later. Either by slipstreaming the ads i
by bityard 2y ago
It's sad, but I don't see a future where Google doesn't close that loophole eventually. And probably sooner rather than later. Either by slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself (most likely) or breaking support for Firefox (less likely, but perfectly doable with the abysmal market share it has these days).
- jostmey 2y agoActually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is so disorganized they are unable to close these loopholes. Any of the things you suggested could’ve already been done long ago, but haven’t
- manquer 2y agoMore popular the service is more difficult to make breaking changes . YouTube has a wide install base on variety of hardware like older TVs, most of it with no path for upgrades . That means it will take many years if a not decade or more for YouTube to implement new protocols and drop old ones without it causing problems to significant user base . If the user base that hacks around ads is < user base that will loose access by implementing something like above , economically it makes sense not to do so.
- wruza 2y agowith the abysmal market share it has these days It just has no killer features. Once it will have that one, https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+use+ad+blockers https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+people+use+ad+block... But I think it’s an empty threat. Google cannot really do anything with it without hurting itself. It will lose all arms races because anti-ads anti-drm community incentives are high and will remain so. “Annoying the whole humanity even more” isn’t an easy business model. slipstreaming the ads into the content stream itself All that energy only for a user to see a black rectangle rendered over a video by sponsorblock.
- 93po 2y agonetflix already doesnt work for me on firefox. not sure why.