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

[Dementoss]

Vivaldi's built-in ad blocker does it's thing, unhindered by YouTube's detection script.

 

[George³]

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

Even with the premium service, ads can sneak in, so here's what users can do to get rid of them. And I thought that I was just starting to pay and the ads would be guaranteed to disappear without wasting time on settings.

 

[Order 66]

Even with the premium service, ads can sneak in, so here's what users can do to get rid of them. And I thought that I was just starting to pay and the ads would be guaranteed to disappear without wasting time on settings.

I've never had an issue with it.

 

[AtrociKitty]

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?

YouTube is a great example of how to do this wrong, because I already pay YouTube and still can't view content.

I use an ad-blocker, but I also pay for monthly memberships to a couple channels. I know my monthly membership fee is split between YouTube and the channel owner. I also know that members-only content has zero ads with or without an ad blocker, because it's already paid for.

Despite this, YouTube will block access to member-only content when an ad-blocker is detected, with the same message you get elsewhere on the site. At least to me, this makes it clear YouTube is concerned with access to user and browser data, rather than monetization.

 

[helper800]

this makes it clear YouTube is concerned with access to user and browser data, rather than monetization.

Access to user and browser data are also monetization efforts.

 

[helper800]

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

I believe that California has opt-in laws which require websites to ask users what cookies and trackers the site are allowed to use. I could be wrong here as I am not a lawyer, nor am I trying to be an internet lawyer. Do you have any light that can be shed on these laws and how in/effective they are with regards to tracking and cookies?

Edit: Some information about what I am talking about!

 

[bit_user]

No ad could make me like Coke or Pepsi

The right ad, at the right time, has genuinely informed me, on a handful of occasions. Furthermore, I'll admit that I sometimes enjoy the more entertaining ads I see, but that's usually when I'm already watching entertainment on TV, where I expect there to be commercials.

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.

The only argument I see that seems defensible is basically to send a message to the ad networks that they've gone too far and we need more/better options. However, I don't blame them for content-blocking users who use ad-blocking.

At the end of the day, bills have to get paid. So, this whole mess is going to play out until we reach a state of equilibrium, and that's one where content-providers are solvent. My hope is it's also one where there's transparency, the invasion of privacy is minimized, and where the end user is ultimately provided with realistic options. IMO, these companies aren't going to do all of that on their own - the best balance cannot be achieved without regulation.

 

[bigdragon]

I hope Hanff is successful and sets a new precedent for the web. The amount of content unrelated to a web page that gets served up with every visit is ridiculous. The scripts and cookies need to be reigned in. The list of blocked things and retries my blocker logs is way too high.

The conversation about YouTube ads in this thread is great. I wanted to add that when I'm stuck sitting through a YouTube ad -- normally because of the mobile app -- it's usually horribly targeted. I get ads for wireless services I already subscribe to, politicians or referendums in completely different states, scams, click-jacking, apps with stolen artwork, weight loss, and things I would never buy. Whatever invasive monitoring crap Google is deploying via mobile is laughably bad. All this technology and the best they can do is serve up ads that don't interest me or make me more motivated to block ads.

I cannot think of a time where an ad motivated me to buy something. I always remember 2010 when I bought baby food to help a pet lizard come out of brumation. I got congratulated by the register and employee for having a new baby. All these coupons for baby stuff printed out. You can imagine the awkwardness, embarrassment, and annoyance when I revealed that the baby food was for a 2 foot, brown, scaly, "iguana." The ad industry needs to back off.

 

[helper800]

My hope is it's also one where the invasion of privacy is minimized and where the end user is ultimately provided with realistic options.

Call me a pessimist, but I feel like this is never going to happen except by way of state or federal law.

 

[Order 66]

I hope Hanff is successful and sets a new precedent for the web. The amount of content unrelated to a web page that gets served up with every visit is ridiculous. The scripts and cookies need to be reigned in. The list of blocked things and retries my blocker logs is way too high.

The conversation about YouTube ads in this thread is great. I wanted to add that when I'm stuck sitting through a YouTube ad -- normally because of the mobile app -- it's usually horribly targeted. I get ads for wireless services I already subscribe to, politicians or referendums in completely different states, scams, click-jacking, apps with stolen artwork, weight loss, and things I would never buy. Whatever invasive monitoring crap Google is deploying via mobile is laughably bad. All this technology and the best they can do is serve up ads that don't interest me or make me more motivated to block ads.

I cannot think of a time where an ad motivated me to buy something. I always remember 2010 when I bought baby food to help a pet lizard come out of brumation. I got congratulated by the register and employee for having a new baby. All these coupons for baby stuff printed out. You can imagine the awkwardness, embarrassment, and annoyance when I revealed that the baby food was for a 2 foot, brown, scaly, "iguana." The ad industry needs to back off.

Not to mention, the ads that appeal to the opposite gender, and the fact that in general, when I see one of these ads, I click stop seeing this ad and I still see the same ad over and over again.

 

[helper800]

Not to mention, the ads that appeal to the opposite gender, and the fact that in general, when I see one of these ads, I click stop seeing this ad and I still see the same ad over and over again.

Never engage with an add that you hate, just leave it alone and it will go away with time, otherwise it sees any engagement as, "More please."

 

[bit_user]

The amount of content unrelated to a web page that gets served up with every visit is ridiculous. The scripts and cookies need to be reigned in. The list of blocked things and retries my blocker logs is way too high.

It's most of the reason why a 10+ year old CPU isn't more than sufficient for web browsing. It's also driving substantial inflation in memory requirements.

 

[bit_user]

Not to mention, the ads that appeal to the opposite gender, and the fact that in general, when I see one of these ads, I click stop seeing this ad and I still see the same ad over and over again.

Do you & @bigdragon prefer better-targeted ads, at the expense of less privacy? I like when I see poorly-targeted ads, because it gives me the feeling they don't know as much about me as they probably do.

 

[Order 66]

Do you & @bigdragon prefer better-targeted ads, at the expense of less privacy? I like when I see poorly-targeted ads, because it gives me the feeling they don't know as much about me as they probably do.

I confess that I don't really know. On the one hand, I care somewhat about privacy and don't necessarily want my personal information exposed on the internet, but on the other hand,I figure that so much of my personal information is already on the internet that another place having it isn't going to make much difference. If I could get targeted ads almost exclusively about PCs and their respective components, I would be fine with that, because I am always interested in new technology, and seeing it in an ad would probably inspire me to do my own independent research about a product to see whether it holds up to the ad's claims. I would say that I would like better-targeted ads that are more relevant to me rather than the general garbage I see right now, but that depends on what personal information I would have to give away. @bit_user what do you think of the fact that other companies probably already have the personal information that allows them to show more targeted ads, but also think about the fact that in order to pay to remove those ads, you have to give even more personal information.

 

[DSzymborski]

I believe that California has opt-in laws which require websites to ask users what cookies and trackers the site are allowed to use. I could be wrong here as I am not a lawyer, nor am I trying to be an internet lawyer. Do you have any light that can be shed on these laws and how in/effective they are with regards to tracking and cookies?

Edit: Some information about what I am talking about!

That's an opt-out law for the information, not one that makes cookies illegal. And there are many exceptions of the right to delete. There's nothing in that law that says you cannot be tracked as it covers use, sale, and the right to delete and/or correct information (with the exceptions such as publicly available information like address, credit information, etc).

But at least we're on the right track here, not like that nutty invocation of federal stalking law.

 

[bigdragon]

Not to mention, the ads that appeal to the opposite gender, and the fact that in general, when I see one of these ads, I click stop seeing this ad and I still see the same ad over and over again.

Ugh! That's obnoxious. It's like all the dog food and weight loss ads I see. I'm friends with a bunch of professional artists and do digital illustrations too from time to time. I'm known to criticize people who depict dragons with super slender, greyhound dog-like body builds. It's ok to add some muscle and weight. I can imagine how confused this could make Google's ad algorithms.

It's most of the reason why a 10+ year old CPU isn't more than sufficient for web browsing. It's also driving substantial inflation in memory requirements.

Yes. I notice this when my fans suddenly rev up on certain websites. Gaming and financial news websites seem to be the worst about this.

Do you & @bigdragon prefer better-targeted ads, at the expense of less privacy? I like when I see poorly-targeted ads, because it gives me the feeling they don't know as much about me as they probably do.

...Yes. I feel awkward responding with a yes. I'd rather avoid annoying ads. Pander to me with some more AoW 4 ads featuring big dragons. I'll take those over soap or NYC political ads.

 

[Order 66]

..Yes. I feel awkward responding with a yes. I'd rather avoid annoying ads. Pander to me with some more AoW 4 ads featuring big dragons. I'll take those over soap or NYC political ads.

I said as much in my response.

 

[Archon of the Valley]

My issue with this whole ad thing is that it's invasive on our privacy, it's predatory on our experience and it treats us like cattle. I have zero issue supporting content creators, I just don't want to feel like my only options to do so are subscribing to Patreon or enabling invasive and predatory ads... so any trouble that Youtube runs into over this issue is 100% welcome in my book! I don't even use YT directly anymore, only through front-ends like Invidious and Freetube.

 

[Order 66]

My issue with this whole ad thing is that it's invasive on our privacy, it's predatory on our experience and it treats us like cattle. I have zero issue supporting content creators, I just don't want to feel like my only options to do so are subscribing to Patreon or enabling invasive and predatory ads... so any trouble that Youtube runs into over this issue is 100% welcome in my book! I don't even use YT directly anymore, only through front-ends like Invidious and Freetube.

I use something similar called watchtube (only for Apple watch) so that I can play audio mainly when my phone is dead. I do wish the Apple watch had airplay, so I could airplay my apple watch YouTube experience onto my slow "smart" TV. If I am not watching it (in specific situations and not often) on my apple watch, I am watching it directly on my phone or my slow smart tv. I only pay for youtube premium as I have to travel through (and stay in) areas that don't have my carrier or terrible wifi and youtube premium allows me to download videos.

 

[Archon of the Valley]

I use something similar called watchtube (only for Apple watch) so that I can play audio mainly when my phone is dead. I do wish the Apple watch had airplay, so I could airplay my apple watch YouTube experience onto my slow "smart" TV. If I am not watching it (in specific situations and not often) on my apple watch, I am watching it directly on my phone or my slow smart tv. I only pay for youtube premium as I have to travel through (and stay in) areas that don't have my carrier or terrible wifi and youtube premium allows me to download videos.

Sounds like a real solid option, I didn't know anything like that existed on Apple devices. I use Newpipe on my phone but you have to sideload F-Droid to get it. Honestly though, I try to avoid YT altogether and use alternatives like Odysee, which feels more like YT as it used to be in the early years. Plus, the decentralized, blockchain-driven LBRY framework is also super appealing.

 

[gg83]

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.

Like brave with the token they made. The idea is awesome but websites never got on board.

 

[Archon of the Valley]

Like brave with the token they made. The idea is awesome but websites never got on board.

100%. I love Brave and the idea of BAT is fantastic but too few sites and creators get on board... the irony is that many of them complain about reduced revenue, yet they could be bolstering that by taking part in alternative ad plans like Brave Rewards.

 

[atomicWAR]

Wow a lot of diverse and well rooted comments. Nice to see. And that's not to say that's my usual experience but this thread stands out as well engaged. Topics like this tend to bring a lot of passion to the table.

More on topic, for my piece I must first state I do tend to use adblockers, vpns, etc. I do not like my information being bought and sold without my permission. I don't mind it being an option but make it truly optional, something that usually isn't the case currently IMHO.

But people need to be paid to keep the lights on, lets be real. Personally I find some way to 'pay' for my usage/traffic. Donations when possible is my first choice, buying merch is another but at the end of the day save extremely regular 'word of mouth recommendations' where you become the ad most of your options include still giving up your personal information. To me I feel a little rail roaded regardless of how I choose to proceed.

At the end of the day we have to accept, for now at least until we can get the laws changed, that our information is out there being bought and sold with ease. But we do have a right to limit how much information IS out there even as things stand now. So be it adblockers or other options within the law, we as users have every right to use them as we see fit. However we must also ensure we contribute to the buisiness's we have relationships with. It's not an easy nut to crack.

I tend to agree with the idea we need some laws in place to stop our information from being sold so easily without or forced consent. That will solve the issue for a fair number of folks. BUT not all as you have other camps out their like those on cost. These media companys can't continue to see its consumers as endless piggy banks jacking up price while frequently further limiting of the 'where' you can find their content all while selling our info. They want to see sub's go up, make them more reasonable/put more options on the table. Say if youtube/netflix/etc gave you the options of ads, premium or selling your information for a large discount or far less but targeted ads, I bet most people would jump on it. Another would be have all these media companies come up with a single membership fee for content access. Make content consumption more like a library or a netflix for everything and less like the flea market it has become with everyone setting up shop to sell you their content, sometimes when they deem its ok or not when they decide to sell the rights for two years to another company so you have to sub them instead to watch your 'show'...

I don't claim to have the answers, but I do have some ideas I think would be worth trying....

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Use FREETUBE.

 

[DSzymborski]

My issue with this whole ad thing is that it's invasive on our privacy, it's predatory on our experience and it treats us like cattle. I have zero issue supporting content creators, I just don't want to feel like my only options to do so are subscribing to Patreon or enabling invasive and predatory ads... so any trouble that Youtube runs into over this issue is 100% welcome in my book! I don't even use YT directly anymore, only through front-ends like Invidious and Freetube.

If you don't pay for the product, *you* are the product.