unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.
YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.
that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.
Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.
Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.
This is why I've never had an issue blocking ads. Pick a couple creators you like, join their patreon or buy some merch. You owe YT nothing.
Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.
You consent to their terms of service and privacy policy when you access their website by your continued use. They disclose the collection of browser behavior and more in the privacy policy. I suspect they are covered here but I don't specialize in EU policy.
Their terms of service have to be compliant with local laws though. You can't just put whatever you want in there and expect it to stand up in court.
This is true. And I'll disclaim again that I'm not an expert on EU law or policy. But I'm not familiar with a US policy or law that would preclude that consent to collection from being a condition of use. I've written these policies for organizations, and I think it will be a difficult argument to make. I'd love to read an analysis by a lawyer or policy writer who specializes in the EU.
Not an expert either, but from what I've seen, the EU actually has some amount of consumer protection. The USA on the other hand mostly lets big corporations get away with whatever they want, as long as they make some "donations".
I haven't agreed to any new terms and the adblocker appears for me
Assuming it didn't exist for months or years before this. As far as I know, blocking ads has always been against ToS.
Also required should be YouTube accepting liability for damage done by malicious ads or hacks injecting malware onto user systems via ad infrastructure.
Why wouldn't the hacker just be liable instead?
Because Google is the one trying to force consumers to raw dog the internet.
Their precedent is that they sold our data for 20 years before this and are now the biggest company in the world, so they can go pound sand.
In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don't "sell" user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it's not in their interest to sell it.
That's a very good point. I'm not very aware of EU regulations, I wonder if there has been established precedent in court
Call me naive, but doing something illegal is never OK in the eyes of the law, whether I deem it necessary or not. I would have to receive a legal exception to the rule, as it were. As it stands, it's illegal.
doing something illegal is never OK in the eyes of the law
yeah, doing something illegal is illegal, hard to argue with that tautology.
but you seem to be living under the impression that immoral = illegal, which is not the case.
I think what they were saying is that the law specifically makes exceptions for things that are necessary. Others are saying ads are not necessary per the law's definition, but that's a separate issue.
YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.
that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.
Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.
This is why I've never had an issue blocking ads. Pick a couple creators you like, join their patreon or buy some merch. You owe YT nothing.
This so much! Same argument for piracy tbh.
Just replying to confirm that "strictly necessary" has never meant, "makes us money." It means technically necessary.
Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.
You consent to their terms of service and privacy policy when you access their website by your continued use. They disclose the collection of browser behavior and more in the privacy policy. I suspect they are covered here but I don't specialize in EU policy.
Their terms of service have to be compliant with local laws though. You can't just put whatever you want in there and expect it to stand up in court.
This is true. And I'll disclaim again that I'm not an expert on EU law or policy. But I'm not familiar with a US policy or law that would preclude that consent to collection from being a condition of use. I've written these policies for organizations, and I think it will be a difficult argument to make. I'd love to read an analysis by a lawyer or policy writer who specializes in the EU.
Not an expert either, but from what I've seen, the EU actually has some amount of consumer protection. The USA on the other hand mostly lets big corporations get away with whatever they want, as long as they make some "donations".
I haven't agreed to any new terms and the adblocker appears for me
Assuming it didn't exist for months or years before this. As far as I know, blocking ads has always been against ToS.
This sign can't stop me because I can't read!
Also required should be YouTube accepting liability for damage done by malicious ads or hacks injecting malware onto user systems via ad infrastructure.
Why wouldn't the hacker just be liable instead?
Because Google is the one trying to force consumers to raw dog the internet.
Their precedent is that they sold our data for 20 years before this and are now the biggest company in the world, so they can go pound sand.
In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don't "sell" user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it's not in their interest to sell it.
That's a very good point. I'm not very aware of EU regulations, I wonder if there has been established precedent in court
Call me naive, but doing something illegal is never OK in the eyes of the law, whether I deem it necessary or not. I would have to receive a legal exception to the rule, as it were. As it stands, it's illegal.
yeah, doing something illegal is illegal, hard to argue with that tautology.
but you seem to be living under the impression that immoral = illegal, which is not the case.
I think what they were saying is that the law specifically makes exceptions for things that are necessary. Others are saying ads are not necessary per the law's definition, but that's a separate issue.