155
Youtube adblock blocking (sh.itjust.works)

I know the topic of whether adblock is piracy is debated, but I am guessing there are a lot of adblock users here and I was wondering if anyone has seen the youtube adblock warning message in the wild. I use ublock origin and still haven't seen it once.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AdventureSpoon@kbin.social 68 points 1 year ago

I know the topic of whether adblock is piracy is debated

Its not debated. Its bullshit.

flat earthers existing doesnt put the earth's sensual curves up for debate either.

[-] j4yc33@kbin.social 44 points 1 year ago

It's Cybersecurity.

100%

Absolutely.

Adblocking is good cybersecurity practice. It puts into stark relief how much of Marketing is actually just manipulation and malware.

[-] ruk_n_rul@monyet.cc 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's one of Lienus's L takes. People are giving it the benefit of a doubt because he has a huge following.

I started parroting "using a VPN to bypass region block is privateering" in response. LMG taking any VPN sponsorships after that L take is hypocrisy in my book.

[-] Spiritreader@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah it's even more ridiculous when you apply this logic to sponsored segments.

It's an ad, I skip it by seeking in the video, therefore it is piracy?

Also, people get arrested and fined for piracy where I live (because it is, well, illegal), so people blocking ads should go to prison?
When the face of LMG talks about things like this in a main channel video they should look into the consequences of the opinion they present.

Excuse the language, but what the actual fuck was Linus thinking?

Like what is the actual end goal here?
Linus says people should be punished for blocking ads, and the best way he thinks it should be executed is by law enforcement? Last time I checked that is how illegal actions are usually handled.

load more comments (6 replies)

Agreed. People need to stop giving that ridiculous idea market share in their head.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] dan@lemm.ee 51 points 1 year ago

Google must be fucking salivating at the prospect of manifest v3 going live and adblockers being gimped.

I wish more people would switch to Firefox.

[-] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Hi, could you give me a brief on how manifest v3 will help Google disable the blocking of advertisements?

[-] dan@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

It changes how extensions work in Chrome (and derived browsers), notably it modifies the API that adblockers use to block requests and dramatically restricts the number of rules they can support. It’s a change pretty clearly designed to limit the scope of adblockers and make it easier for companies like Google to work around them.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening

[-] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Which would mean that Brave and Ungoogled-Chromium won't work as well anymore

[-] dan@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Brave have said they’ll retain support for Manifest v2, but realistically that’s likely to be non-trivial amounts of work, and get harder as their upstream codebase moves away from it and the internals get switched over from the old webRequest mechanism.

They’ll have to patch things manually to keep it working, which is likely to get harder and harder. If Google want to make it hard for them to retain support, they can do so.

At some point they may not have the resources to keep doing that and might have to decide between forking the codebase and losing manifest v2. If they fork then they’ll have a load more work to do in backporting security changes etc.

They’ll also have to find a way to retain the old manifest v2 versions of extensions, as they’ll disappear from the Chrome store. Might mean maintaining a separate store. The authors might not care enough to maintain a Brave version of their extensions.

All in all it’s not great path forward for Brave. At best they’ll have an increased maintenance burden. At worst it gives Google the power to force them to drop Manifest v2 or be overwhelmed by maintenance. But this is what we get for handing an effective monopoly to Google.

Switch to Firefox!

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago

I'd love it if Brave eventually starts building off Firefox just so there's another browser out there that isn't built on Chromium.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nani8ot@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

In short, Google limits extension API access, which blocks extensions like uBlock Origin from reaching their full potential. Firefox doesn't.

[-] Kururin@talk.kururin.tech 40 points 1 year ago

If you use uBlock origin you would never see it. I use both PiHole + uBlock origin and I would never see it lmao.

[-] kostel_thecreed@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 year ago

Pihole does nothing on YouTube as their ads are served on the save server as the videos.

[-] Kururin@talk.kururin.tech 17 points 1 year ago

I know, but they help with the ads on the website itself. Not the videos.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] maxprime@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

How do you know that? I’m fairly certain that google can tell if they have served you an ad, and cutting off access to their streaming services seems like a straightforward thing from their point of view. How could ublock (or anything) prevent google from blocking the stream? It’s not about blocking ads, or blocking messages to turn your adblocker off. It’s about google acknowledging that they haven’t served you an ad. You can’t force them to serve a video, I don’t think.

This “feature” is being rolled out slowly, which probably means they are taking lots of telemetry about how users try to circumvent this. It also means that just because you or I haven’t seen it does not mean we are safe against it. I’m not saying there is no solution, but I don’t think the solution is an adblocker or a sinkhole.

[-] bonegolem@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 1 year ago

ReVanced and Newpipe on mobile, SmartTube on TV, uBlock origin on Vivaldi and LibreWolf (currently in the middle of switching).

Seen nothing on any of those. They're all working flawlessly, for now.

[-] D4gma@feddit.it 10 points 1 year ago

Mozilla Firefox + ublock = flawless experience.

[-] Fleecer74@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago

I think it’s in A/B testing right now, maybe you haven’t gotten it?

[-] LollerCorleone@kbin.social 34 points 1 year ago

I use Firefox with ublock origin and haven't seen it yet.

[-] BugKilla@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I do the same. I also run pfSense with the pfBlockerNG module pulling in lists that block ad (and a tonne of other) sources. Also have a look at pihole as it can do a similar function.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Uriel238@lemmy.fmhy.ml 33 points 1 year ago

Youtube's ad policy is abusive, and online ads are not always safe. Regardless of whether adblocking is legal or fair to Youtube, not doing so puts you at greater risk of malware insertion so is a necessary safety precaution.

As YouTube profits from your engagement through more than ads, YouTube still benefits even when you watch videos without ads.

[-] pazukaza@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Edit: downvoted with 0 counter-arguments. Classic.

Personally, I don't see how YouTube can be abusive. It is their platform and they can do whatever they want with it. It is your choice if you use it or not. If you think the ads are out of control, you can pay for their subscription or use free services.

If content creators are uploading their videos there, it is because YouTube can pay them more than other platforms... Thanks to the ads. So it's not like there aren't other options out there, it's just that YouTube pays content creators more. Free market.

You're getting an endless amount of information backed by amazing engineers that designed a service that never goes down and loads 4K videos at incredible speeds worldwide for millions of users concurrently.... At the price of a few minutes of your life per day. Seems fair. They are not denying you the access to the information. They are using that money to pay content creators fairly so they are incentiviced to create more content that you can enjoy.

YouTube is a high quality service. Why is it bad to give them something back for the high quality service you're receiving? It's not like this is a mediocre click bait article with 50 ads attacking your screen. Plus, you're also giving back to the content creators. If you didn't like the content, you can downvote them or report them to tweak the algorithm.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It's abusive because a 2min video will have 30sec of ads its absolute bullshit and worse than even cable fuckery.

And I'm really, REALLY sick if seeing this idiotic argument of company X can do anything they want, because free market.

This isn't even youtube specific but I absolutely disagree with that line of reasoning. That same argument is used by people whenever a company does shady shit.

No company just materialized out of thin air pulling themselves out of the ether, they all exist and thrive because of the community WE all created! Our public infrastructure, education, tax codes and million other things WE contributed allows any corporation to exist at all.

So no, corporations don't get to just do whatever the fuck they want, because "market".

I personally would pay for YouTube for a reasonable price and 10$/month ain't it. I don't want youtube music or whatever shit they are bundling with it.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] wanderingmagus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

My guy you're posting on a piracy community.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don’t see how YouTube can be abusive

Do you also not see how a Tyrant boss that screams and belittles their employees is being abusive? The employees are free to quit and find work elsewhere right? Oh wait, freedom to avoid abusive behaviour doesn't make that behaviour non-abusive!

I'll also add that Youtube's ads aren't the only way you 'pay' for the service. They gobble up all the data they can glean from your interactions with them. So much data most people don't even really understand how much they're giving away. This data is sold sure, but it is also used to inform the algorithm on how to make the service more addictive to the users. That is to say, some of the abuse is insidious. Are drug dealers paragons of virtue when they offer free samples?

No other service advertises as obtrusively as Youtube does. Twitch comes close. The reasons they get away with this are:

  • the service is designed to be addictive, and

  • they have an effective monopoly. No other free service (and paid for that matter) comes close.

Both easily defined as abusive.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] startlefrenzy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Also an unpopular opinion but I actually don't mind paying for YouTube Premium to avoid the ads. Content creators get a bigger cut from my watching habits and it comes with a music streaming platform.

We are in piracy community though so it makes sense people are against paying for content that once upon a time was completely free.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kholdstayr@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago

It boggles my mind about but people are upset about blocking ads in a piracy group. Chill out everyone!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] moreeni@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

I haven't seen it because I haven't used the default front-end in years :D

[-] wolfshadowheart@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

From my understanding it has only been rolled out to Chrome users so far. Anyone using adblocks with Firefox will not have seen these yet.

However to ensure you don't, I suggest beginning your transition to some of the alternatives. I have been migrating to Piped which is essentially a scraper.

[-] mbeezy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago
[-] dillekant@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago

We need to block the adblock blockers...

[-] idkman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

I don't even use browser to watch youtube vids anymore. Freetube -> mpv with sponsorblock plugin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Generator@lemmy.pt 8 points 1 year ago

Adblock is piracy!

Just use Pided (https://piped.video), Invidious, Freetube or something else.

Youtube website is just trash bloated with JavaScript and trackers.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Digital_Prophet@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago
[-] yata@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

OP do you perhaps use a non-Chromium based browser? Because their adblock blocking is only active on Chromium based browsers.

[-] rufus@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago

no. never seen (yet). and using adblock is perfectly fine.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
155 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54539 readers
140 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS