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

[bit_user]

I am much more into scientific, tech, cars, music and musical instruments...

I understand. There's a tremendous amount of good content on youtube.

It's a shame there have to be any tradeoffs for using the platform. It's not a totally intractable problem, even if I don't have any realistic expectations of it being effectively addressed in the near future.

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.

You're very kind. Always try to take my comments with a grain of salt and please challenge anything that doesn't make sense or conflicts with other information you have. Also, I try to make it clear when I'm speculating or operating on incomplete information, but I don't always do a good job of that.

I think you make valuable contributions to our discussions, as well.

 

[Deleted member 978]

What YouTube are doing is in violation of GDPR and various US laws. Advertising is one thing, but interrogation of one's computer via some JavaScript to determine if some code is blocking advertising from showing is most definitely a violation of privacy.

As pointed out MalwareBytes (as do most good anti-virus and malware software) blocks "Tracking" not advertising. This isn't about advertising, it's about illegal tracking without users consent.

In the EU this will be a swift response to cease and desist or else be fined daily. In the US, it will be more tricky and could likely end up going to US Supreme Court which is currently heavily corrupted in favor of big Business.

EDIT: I have ZERO sympathy for YouTube aka Google aka Alphabet Inc that has $2 Trillion in market cap. Don't expect to see me break out the violins of sympathy for YouTube on the earnings front.

 

[Giroro]

If YouTube doesn't want to own a monopoly on viewership, even freeloader viewership...ok. But at some point along the line, a major faction of YouTube executives seems to have completely forgotten that this platform is theoretically social media. They think convincing teenagers to spam garbage for pennies is the same business model as Netflix. They think viewers will pay Netflix-levels of money to watch that cheap lazy crap... But here the deal, YouTube is not the same thing as a Hollywood streaming service. Like at all.

The reliable repeat viewers and the creators are the exact same people. A million angry viewers might not matter on their monopoly of 2 billion active accounts, but that also means 1 million angry creators.
Creators who might never have made a cent on YouTube. But they can and will give their talent to the first competitor or upstart willing to welcome the free content. These people work for an audience, not for a paycheck.
They'll go to the first company willing to sacrifice profit for market share. If they get in early enough add work hard enough, some of this creators will even get the fame they never would have been allowed to achieve on YouTube.
A million wild jaded creators will eventually grow to be a real problem for YouTube.

It's almost like Alphabet thinks they're completely immune to the cutthroat silicon-valley business model that they literally created. Maybe that was true when they owned search, but times have changed. Google doesn't work as a search engine any more, and it's only a matter of time until people find a better way.

 

[DonQuixoteIII]

"Do No Evil" didn't last long, did it Google? Replaced by "Greed is Good!!!"

 

[Giroro]

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?

Alphabet became a 1.7 Trillion dollar company without having to track ad blockers.

Its completely pointless to ask a non-billionaire how they made that kind of money.

 

[Giroro]

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.

What do you mean in 20 years? We've been there for way longer than you can imagine.

How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did

Target has perfected the technique of analyzing consumers' shopping habits to figure out who's pregnant. How can they send customers congratulatory coupons without freaking them out?

www.forbes.com

 

[bit_user]

a major faction of YouTube executives seems to have completely forgotten that this platform is theoretically social media. They think convincing teenagers to spam garbage for pennies is the same business model as Netflix. They think viewers will pay Netflix-levels of money to watch that cheap lazy crap... But here the deal, YouTube is not the same thing as a Hollywood streaming service. Like at all.

There's a lot of commercial content on Youtube. The major TV networks have all resorted to uploading some of their more popular shows to Youtube, in spite of now having their own streaming services, I guess because they figure someone will upload it, so they might as well at least get paid for it. Plus, the audience on Youtube dwarfs what they each have on their own networks.

Creators who might never have made a cent on YouTube. But they can and will give their talent to the first competitor or upstart willing to welcome the free content.

What upstart? Vimeo? I can't remember the last time I even saw a Vimeo vid. Or do you mean Tik Tok?

The reality is that Youtube is quite simply the largest and most accessible platform out there. For creators who want to reach the largest audience, it's either Youtube or Tik Tock.

They'll go to the first company willing to sacrifice profit for market share. If they get in early enough add work hard enough, some of this creators will even get the fame they never would have been allowed to achieve on YouTube.
A million wild jaded creators will eventually grow to be a real problem for YouTube.

At this point, you're starting to get into fanfic/wish-fulfillment territory. You really should disclose the fact that you're a disgruntled, would-be Youtube creator.

 

[mmhhectt]

I have not seen this message yet but some friends have seen it. We all use privacy browsers. However, what I am seeing are 60-120 minute (not second but minute) "ads" in the YouTube app on my smart TV, which cannot be defeated for autoplay but can be skipped if you happen to be paying attention anytime within those 60-120 minutes. Hour to two-hour advertisements seem misclassified to me. In any case, there has to be a better way to handle all of this than this game of cat and mouse that has continued for what seems like two decades now, with its ebb and flow of unscrupulous advertisers and heavy-handed tactics of the content providers, and the evasiveness of consumers that this encourages.

 

[DSzymborski]

What YouTube are doing is in violation of GDPR and various US laws. Advertising is one thing, but interrogation of one's computer via some JavaScript to determine if some code is blocking advertising from showing is most definitely a violation of privacy.

As pointed out MalwareBytes (as do most good anti-virus and malware software) blocks "Tracking" not advertising. This isn't about advertising, it's about illegal tracking without users consent.

In the EU this will be a swift response to cease and desist or else be fined daily. In the US, it will be more tricky and could likely end up going to US Supreme Court which is currently heavily corrupted in favor of big Business.

EDIT: I have ZERO sympathy for YouTube aka Google aka Alphabet Inc that has $2 Trillion in market cap. Don't expect to see me break out the violins of sympathy for YouTube on the earnings front.

Can you specifically cite some of the US laws broken here? It would be useful to list them specifically, assuming this isn't fan fiction. For example, there are no federal laws involving privacy and cookie use.

 

[George³]

Can you specifically cite some of the US laws broken here? It would be useful to list them specifically, assuming this isn't fan fiction. For example, there are no federal laws involving privacy and cookie use.

FTC Act: 15 U.S.C. § 41
CPA: 15 U.S.C. § 45
18 U.S.C. § 2261A: 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A
Maybe have more.

 

[DSzymborski]

FTC Act: 15 U.S.C. § 41
CPA: 15 U.S.C. § 45
18 U.S.C. § 2261A: 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A
Maybe have more.

Let's see.

First cite: establishment of the Federal Trade Commission

Second cite: specifying that the FTC has the power to prohibit unfair trade practices, with a limitation on issues involving foreign trade.

Third cite: A federal stalking statue which clearly has no relevance to this issue: are you actually going to argue on a good faith basis that cookies place a person in fear of death, severe bodily injury, or substantial emotional distress to the internet user, an immediate family member, a spouse/intimate partner?

Note that substantial emotional distress has specific meaning. To quote Washington's state stalking law here (other jurisdictions define it similarly), substantial emotional distress is "significant mental suffering or anguish that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling." It doesn't mean "mildly annoyed" or "I can't watch YouTube videos."

Are you actually reading any of these before you cite them?

 

[George³]

Because FTC exists there has a website and this.
In other laws has text about harassment and advertising of unfair and deceptive practices.

 

[DSzymborski]

Because FTC exists there has a website and this.
In other laws has text about harassment and advertising of unfair and deceptive practices.

None of this has anything to do with the legality of cookies in the US, which was the question.

 

[George³]

None of this has anything to do with the legality of cookies in the US, which was the question.

Because I am not a lawyer, and the legislation of the United States is thousands of volumes, I am not able to point out many and specific texts. But such undoubtedly exist. Otherwise, this material would not have been written either.

 

[DSzymborski]

Because I am not a lawyer, and the legislation of the United States is thousands of volumes, I am not able to point out many and specific texts. But such undoubtedly exist. Otherwise, this material would not have been written either.

Again, that is a general policy describing the FTC's role vis-à-vis deceptive practices. That doesn't make cookies illegal, nor does a single law in that page *specifically* address cookies, which is the claim that was made above I was questioning. Google has been fined for cookies in the past, but it wasn't because cookies existed, but because of a specific instance in which they gave misleading information *about* cookies.

It's fine to not understand US law, but I'm extremely confused why, if you don't understand US laws or know the specific US laws that would make cookies illegal, you would respond to a request not directed at you to cite relevant laws.

Earlier in this thread you responded to a request about cookies with a link to criminal stalking legislation which has absolutely nothing to do with any issue discussed here.

 

[George³]

You seem to think that I intend to take concrete action against YouTube and need the quality of an accuser? This is not a courtroom. We're just talking.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned that I was aggressively shown an ad with a Russian oligarch on YouTube. Someone else may have seen other things that may be illegal. Do I have to go public in the thread and reveal my personal information to please you?

 

[DSzymborski]

You seem to think that I intend to take concrete action against YouTube and need the quality of an accuser? This is not a courtroom. We're just talking.
Earlier in the thread I mentioned that I was aggressively shown an ad with a Russian oligarch on YouTube. Someone else may have seen other things that may be illegal. Do I have to go public in the thread and reveal my personal information to please you?

This has nothing to do with anything. I didn't ask about your "quality," I simply asked why you derailed a thread to answer a question on a topic you didn't understand in a way that had nothing to do with the topic. This is not the first time.

 

[Pollopesca]

Back in the day when websites had boarder ads, those were tolerable. But ads have become intrusive to the point where they inhibit the functionality of the webpage. Anything that pops up in the middle of the screen while scrolling or blocks content until I’ve stared at the ad for X seconds is why ad blockers became so prevalent. Not to mention the system resources they suck up. My battery and data draining rapidly due to five video ads running in the background while I’m trying to look at a still jpg… These YouTube ads are no different.

 

[PEnns]

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?

From non intrusive or disruptive ads. Most of us would live with that

But most importantly, not from ads which are blatant scams / tracking ads.

 

[Order 66]

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 just use Youtube Premium, since I mainly watch on my TV where it isn't really possible to install an ad blocker.

 

[Order 66]

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.😱

which is why I block 3rd party cookies unless a site absolutely needs them to work.

 

[Order 66]

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?

Premium services, or (and I'm sure many people won't agree.) collecting and selling personal information. Before a war is started in the comments, think about this: you already provide your personal information to many different sites that also sell it. Heck, I'm sure that YouTube already does this in some capacity. I don't see any problem with it as long as they are upfront about it.

 

[abufrejoval]

I am starting to believe that the first to be suckered by the iGiants were actually the advertisers.

I've always just been annoyed by ads, and, unless I am horribly mistaken, I've never bought anything significant, because it was advertised.

No ad could make me like Coke or Pepsi, I never bought any car new, or because I really fell for its looks, most of my money just went into a home-loan and into things like food, water, heating, electricity for a big family where decisons aren't driven by ads because necessity steers most choices.

And, of course, I've always built my computers from parts (except notebooks) into practical boxes for decades...

In short: shiny bling-bling is just another type of noise to me and why should I pay for something that is essentially Heavy Metal to eyes and ears?

Now, that iGiants try to push you into subscriptions, all those annoyances make far more sense: they are exactly and only designed to inflict pain. Just enough pain to have you finally yield and subscribe.

And once that's done, they'll just raise the bar or start advertising for the next level of pain relief, joining the suckers won't do much if any but empty your pockets and empower the iGiants to fasten their stranglehold further.

And they somehow managed to get advertisers into paying for that war and most of the original setup cost of their platform. Probably by faking just how successful advertisement was for any given market.

Well, I guess it stands to reason, that if you do advertisement, you also believe in its effectiveness...
Just like marketeers believe that marketing is doing something useful.

That said, the right to self-defence via any code you run on your PC against code that is slung at you from the web may not be infringed. It's bad enough they can make you pay for the energy wasted in that battle or that they cannot be sued for the suffering bad ads cause.

Don't feel guilty using ad-blockers, because not only is it both right and your right, but their arguments with regards to advertisers becoming paupers otherwise is patently false and only self-serving.

 

[ivan_vy]

This is why I have 6 different blockers running simultaneously!

me to youtube:
Good luck, I'm behind 7 proxies

 

[Order 66]

I am starting to believe that the first to be suckered by the iGiants were actually the advertisers.

I've always just been annoyed by ads, and, unless I am horribly mistaken, I've never bought anything significant, because it was advertised.

No ad could make me like Coke or Pepsi, I never bought any car new, or because I really fell for its looks, most of my money just went into a home-loan and into things like food, water, heating, electricity for a big family where decisons aren't driven by ads because necessity steers most choices.

And, of course, I've always built my computers from parts (except notebooks) into practical boxes for decades...

In short: shiny bling-bling is just another type of noise to me and why should I pay for something that is essentially Heavy Metal to eyes and ears?

Now, that iGiants try to push you into subscriptions, all those annoyances make far more sense: they are exactly and only designed to inflict pain. Just enough pain to have you finally yield and subscribe.

And once that's done, they'll just raise the bar or start advertising for the next level of pain relief, joining the suckers won't do much if any but empty your pockets and empower the iGiants to fasten their stranglehold further.

And they somehow managed to get advertisers into paying for that war and most of the original setup cost of their platform. Probably by faking just how successful advertisement was for any given market.

Well, I guess it stands to reason, that if you do advertisement, you also believe in its effectiveness...
Just like marketeers believe that marketing is doing something useful.

That said, the right to self-defence via any code you run on your PC against code that is slung at you from the web may not be infringed. It's bad enough they can make you pay for the energy wasted in that battle or that they cannot be sued for the suffering bad ads cause.

Don't feel guilty using ad-blockers, because not only is it both right and your right, but their arguments with regards to advertisers becoming paupers otherwise is patently false and only self-serving.

I somewhat agree with what you are saying, but ads are how creators make the majority of their money. On other sites, I would consider using an adblocker to improve performance on low-end devices.