News YouTube May Face Criminal Complaints in EU for Using Ad-Block Detection Scripts

[Admin]

An Irish privacy consultant wants to put a stop to YouTube (and Meta) checking data outside of permissible bounds.

YouTube May Face Criminal Complaints in EU for Using Ad-Block Detection Scripts : Read more

 

[brandonjclark]

Good! I hope he's successful!

 

[vanadiel007]

I will gladly watch advertisements, if I get a cut of the money. But if I am forced to watch them, I will do anything I can to get rid of them.
Clearly Google has not learned from the past. Just ask TV broadcasters how their add infested programming is doing these days.

And this has nothing to do with not being able to provide the service without us watching it. This all has to do with increasing revenue at the cost of the consumer.

 

[TechLurker]

I hope he succeeds, and I hope the EU forces them to pull back entirely.

 

[Unolocogringo]

I'm in the US and have recieved those pop ups .
I do not run add blockers.
But I do run Malware Bytes Browser guard and Ghostery in Firefox.
They are set to block tracking cookies not ads.
If your ad has a tracking cookie embedded, it gets blocked and I do not see it.
Great combo!

 

[benovt]

Should be an international lawsuit against YouTube. A very large percentage of advertisements I have watched are scam/fraudulent and YouTube should be 100% responsible for any content available on the streaming platform. Every user has the right to privacy and security. Until they can provide better securities and moderation of material they have no grounds to take action against any user protecting themelves.

 

[USAFRet]

I hate ads as much as the next guy...maybe more.

But as a point of discussion:

Where should the money to support online services come from?

 

[George³]

I hate ads as much as the next guy...maybe more.

But as a point of discussion:

Where should the money to support online services come from?

Certainly not from the prince from whom you inherited a diamond mine in Africa. It also shows me an ad for a famous Russian oligarch who wants nothing from me but to teach me how to become a millionaire.

 

[Unolocogringo]

I hate ads as much as the next guy...maybe more.

But as a point of discussion:

Where should the money to support online services come from?

I grew up watching ads, knowing full well they paid for the programming.
I also support public television. and fully accept their ads.
I do not support any company placing a tracking cookie on my computer because I clicked on an ad.
I did not consent to that.

Now people who intentionally run ad blockers to basically steal "paid by ads" content up front is an ethics question.

There is a HUGE difference between watching ads and them placing tracking cookies on my computer from looking at their page or clicking on an ad.

For instance Toms Hardware home page when left unfiltered tries to place 75 tracking cookies on my computer.
6 of which are necessary for the site to remember who I am and keep track of posts/updates/comments etc.... Fully allowed.

But these 20 or so other company's cookies and their tracking are not allowed on my computer. I will watch and click on your ad if it something I need or want to buy and accept temporary cookies to make sure Toms or whoever gets paid their commission. fine with that also!

It is a system that needs worked on. That lets sites make money for their content. But at the same time does not try to track everything I do on the internet.
No back to my holiday "tin foil hat" designing project.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

He's not going to win, sadly. I wouldn't mind paying for ad free Youtube Premium, but the price they want is in excess of some ad free streaming services at $13.99 a month. That's fine if you also want Youtube Music (which is bundled with it), but for the vast majority of people who don't, Google needs to make it stand alone and inexpensive ($3 a month tops), or include it in the Google One feature set for Standard and above, since Google One is pretty lackluster.

 

[Sippincider]

I don't mind the ads you can dismiss after a couple seconds. As others have posted something needs to keep the lights on.

BUT those lights shouldn't be chandeliers. Multiple full-length ads which can't be dismissed, every few minutes?? Advertisers: take note that the volume gets muted, the window gets shrunk, and whatever you're selling I'm not buying.

 

[P.Amini]

This is why I have 6 different blockers running simultaneously!

 

[bit_user]

On the topic of social networks and ads, I think it's corrosive to society for them to allow targeting of political ads by anything other than district (or state, for state-wide offices). Having a politician be able to say a highly selective message to one voter, that bares almost no resemblance to what they tell another voter, can really supercharge the typical political games they play. Voters are best served when politicians have to broadcast the same message to everyone (or, at least large groups), so that the most number of people know their complete set of positions.

The amount that different social media companies allow targeted political ads determines whether I block their ads during election season. I should note that I don't use Twitter, Facebook, or hardly any Youtube, so it's not like I'm trying to use their services for free. It's just on other sites carrying their ads, where I have no other way to control whose ads I'm seeing.

 

[bit_user]

He's not going to win, sadly. I wouldn't mind paying for ad free Youtube Premium,

I watch the least amount on Youtube that I possibly can. I only go there to watch specific videos, and then close it right after. Not only is that site a monumental waste of time, but they also haven't done enough to limit the spread of conspiracies and radicalization.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

I watch the least amount on Youtube that I possibly can. I only go there to watch specific videos, and then close it right after. Not only is that site a monumental waste of time, but they also haven't done enough to limit the spread of conspiracies and radicalization.

I pay for standard Google One, and watch maybe a couple of hours of Youtube a year.

 

[USAFRet]

On the topic of social networks and ads, I think it's corrosive to society for them to allow targeting of political ads by anything other than district (or state, for state-wide offices). Having a politician be able to say a highly selective message to one voter, that bares almost no resemblance to what they tell another voter, can really supercharge the typical political games they play. Voters are best served when politicians have to broadcast the same message to everyone (or, at least large groups), so that everyone knows what their platform actually is.

That has been a thing for FAR longer than "social media" existed.

Print newspapers would often print 2 different articles on the exact same event.
Slant of the article based on local demographics.

Social media just hides it a little better.

 

[bit_user]

That has been a thing for FAR longer than "social media" existed.

Print newspapers would often print 2 different articles on the exact same event.
Slant of the article based on local demographics.

Social media just hides it a little better.

Technology supercharges it, in several ways.

Yes, different print newspapers have different audiences, since they will have a certain bias or geographical area, but you're still talking about a fundamentally broadcast medium, where anyone can go and look at an article from a certain edition of a certain paper and see what was said. With targeted advertising, not only can the ads be tailored to the exact background and interests of a specific voter, but there's no transparency! If there are attacks/lies/misrepresentations being spread, nobody else can hear them and try to debunk or respond to the allegations.

You could theoretically have this scenario with "knocking on doors", but that doesn't scale very well and there still wasn't the trove of information being collected on each person a politician would be talking to. A (representative) democracy is based on the notion of collective decision-making, but when voters are each acting on a different set of facts and information, does that not violate the spirit of the exercise, if not also the integrity of the result?

 

[P.Amini]

I watch the least amount on Youtube that I possibly can. I only go there to watch specific videos, and then close it right after. Not only is that site a monumental waste of time, but they also haven't done enough to limit the spread of conspiracies and radicalization.

YouTube is like internet itself, unlimited amount of good and useful stuff for every person, unlimited amount of meh stuff and unlimited amount of junk.

 

[bit_user]

Youtube is like internet itself, unlimited good and useful stuff for every person, unlimited meh stuff and unlimited junk.

The biggest concern I have is their recommendation algorithm, and that's where your "internet" analogy sort of breaks down. In the past, it had a tendency to quickly lead people down rabbit holes of extremism or conspiracy theories, because it was optimized around increasing engagement. Getting someone agitated is one of the best ways to keep them engaged. For a long time, the only thing Google cared about was keeping people on the site and viewing ads, because ads -> $$$.

It's not only Youtube, but they're one of the biggest and highest-profile examples. Worse, they had known about the problem for years, before they tried to do anything to counter or mitigate the problem. In my opinion, they still haven't done enough. Maybe we can't rely on them to self-regulate.

 

[stonecarver]

The difference between human stalker and a digital stalker. Nothing but being one is analog vs digital there is very little on the digital boundaries set by law.

"Stalking" is the term commonly used to refer to a pattern of behavior directed towards an individual by another that results in the person to whom the behavior is directed fearing for themselves and/or others. The behaviors can involve overtly criminal behavior or seemingly non-criminal, innocent behavior or both.

-----or seemingly non-criminal, innocent behavior or both-----. AKA cookies that collect your life and sell it back to you with a smile.

Ad's are fine but in the old days ad's went as far as your mail box or news paper on the porch and if it was on the TV you just muted it.

You can't mute it any more. There inter twined in your every movement. You could be telling wife your shopping list and your phone is sitting there and she said make sure you get eggs.

Your almost done at walmart walking up to pay and your phone beeps. Hmm let me look an ad for eggs ? You laugh it off as but where will we be in 20yrs.

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, different print newspapers have different audiences, since they will have a certain bias or geographical area,

No...the same newspaper, from the same corporate, in different areas and audiences.

Just as with social media, utube, or whatever...."How can we get and retain the most eyeballs on our product?"

 

[USAFRet]

For a long time, the only thing Google cared about was keeping people on the site and viewing ads

What makes you think they've stopped?

 

[P.Amini]

The biggest concern I have is their recommendation algorithm, and that's where your "internet" analogy sort of breaks down. In the past, it had a tendency to quickly lead people down rabbit holes of extremism or conspiracy theories, because it was optimized around increasing engagement. Getting someone agitated is one of the best ways to keep them engaged.

It's not only Youtube, but they're one of the biggest and highest-profile examples. Worse, they had known about the problem for years, before they tried to do anything to counter or mitigate the problem.

I am much more into scientific, tech, cars, music and musical instruments... and some entertainment stuff and I stay away from conspiracy theories as I gain nothing from them. I really really hate ads too and I do almost anything to stay away from ads. I also tend to dislike things that I've seen in ads so I won't buy them if there is a good alternative product.

 

[P.Amini]

The biggest concern I have is their recommendation algorithm, and that's where your "internet" analogy sort of breaks down. In the past, it had a tendency to quickly lead people down rabbit holes of extremism or conspiracy theories, because it was optimized around increasing engagement. Getting someone agitated is one of the best ways to keep them engaged. For a long time, the only thing Google cared about was keeping people on the site and viewing ads, because ads -> $$$.

It's not only Youtube, but they're one of the biggest and highest-profile examples. Worse, they had known about the problem for years, before they tried to do anything to counter or mitigate the problem. In my opinion, they still haven't done enough. Maybe we can't rely on them to self-regulate.

I've also learned something from your comments (about technology) and I can say they are useful most of the times and I don't skip them.

 

[bit_user]

What makes you think they've stopped?

I know that's still their top priority, but I think they've started to fear being regulated, in recent years. Hence, they've been making at least a token effort. It's not enough, IMO.