I suspect ad blocking will always be an arms race. The server can only ask the client to play the ad, and then rely on the client to truthfully report whether it did so.
I'm sure they'll try to implement some type of DRM BS into the web that allows them. It's one of the good things about projects like Gemini. I used to think it was only good for the novelty of having a web alternative protocol.
No doubt Big Tech would lobby for Microsoft to use Windows to flag Gemini browsers as malicious and then run FUD campaigns against the Gemini protocol
I’m sure they’ll try to implement some type of DRM BS into the web
Y'all remember when back in the day, Google's motto was "don't be evil." And then at some point somebody told them how much money there was in being evil and then they just pivoted to being a functional parody of a giant evil megacorporation from a cyberpunk novel? Cuz I remember that.
It still doesn't stop queueing a few videos ahead of time and watching them though, let it play the ad to noone and just cut it out after
But then you'll get prompts for "What product did you just watch an ad for?"
"Drink verification can."
They already do this on the YouTube TV app
It's amazing how many times someone in this thread has joked about Google doing something absurd sounding only for it to already be true.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing - some percentage of people who do watch the ads will close the tab rather than read the prompt and answer it.
It’s only a matter of time before they start embedding them into the video like podcasts do and you won’t be able tell the difference between ad and video with software.
Timestamps can still be voluntarily marked for an auto-skip feature to jump throughthe ads.
Not if YouTube interjects the ad after uploading and the location is randomized.
That's why there pushing Web Environment Integrity (essentially just DRM for the entire internet)
I suspect ad blocking will always be an arms race. The server can only ask the client to play the ad, and then rely on the client to truthfully report whether it did so.
I'm sure they'll try to implement some type of DRM BS into the web that allows them. It's one of the good things about projects like Gemini. I used to think it was only good for the novelty of having a web alternative protocol.
No doubt Big Tech would lobby for Microsoft to use Windows to flag Gemini browsers as malicious and then run FUD campaigns against the Gemini protocol
Funny you say that:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/02/googles-plan-to-drm-the-web-goes-against-everything-google-once-stood-for/
Google is already testing it I think.
Y'all remember when back in the day, Google's motto was "don't be evil." And then at some point somebody told them how much money there was in being evil and then they just pivoted to being a functional parody of a giant evil megacorporation from a cyberpunk novel? Cuz I remember that.
It still doesn't stop queueing a few videos ahead of time and watching them though, let it play the ad to noone and just cut it out after
But then you'll get prompts for "What product did you just watch an ad for?"
"Drink verification can."
They already do this on the YouTube TV app
It's amazing how many times someone in this thread has joked about Google doing something absurd sounding only for it to already be true.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing - some percentage of people who do watch the ads will close the tab rather than read the prompt and answer it.
It’s only a matter of time before they start embedding them into the video like podcasts do and you won’t be able tell the difference between ad and video with software.
Timestamps can still be voluntarily marked for an auto-skip feature to jump throughthe ads.
Not if YouTube interjects the ad after uploading and the location is randomized.
That's why there pushing Web Environment Integrity (essentially just DRM for the entire internet)