Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.
engadget.com
Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.::YouTube's dramatic content gatekeeping decisions of late have a long history behind them, and there's an equally long history of these defenses being bypassed.
You know… in all my time upon this earth, I cannot look back and think of a single instance where I thought: “Gosh, this advertisement which has inserted itself in between me and the desired content has actually made me want to go purchase that product.”
Ads are effective, sadly. And why so much money is poured into them. I believe there are a few effects at play but the direct, see and ad and want to go buy it now is only one ofbhem that mostly only affects some people, or a lot of people occasionally.
I think a bigger effect is familiarity. You are far more likely to pick a product you are familiar with or have seen before over something younjave never heard of. Even if you have only ever seen it on advets and completely forgotten that you have ever seen ads for it. So even if you don't think they work on you they likely do without you realizing, at least enough of the time on enough people that make them worth while running.
Bingo. It's not about making you buy something right now, it's about brand recognition and such.
To wit, if you listen to podcasts, do a little thought experiment. Name a VPN company.
Was it "Nord VPN"? Ads work.
archmullvad, btw.)I think ad space sellers wildly overestimate the effectiveness of ads and google has made it far worse with targeted ads. People have gotten used to saying things like "ads work" and "brand recognition" but does anyone know the numbers? Or is this just repeating some phrases you've heard?
I don't know the numbers myself, but I'm quite skeptical.
Companies have tested this. A DIY chain ran an ad and people complained it was annoying, so they stopped running it. Their sales started to decline. Started running the ad again and sales went up.
Probably you're not the target audience and just collateral damage in the ad war, but for the population in general they work.
A DIY chain is the ad I’m most unlikely to see. The only ads I see are usually the same 5 auto makers advertising the same bland cars on a cliff or in a desert. The vast vast majority of ads don’t work and waste everyone’s time for a small bump in sales and recognition. Especially since the variety of the US market is dominated by so few billion dollar businesses. Like Walmart still advertises. Walmart. The company that owns like 40% of grocery sales in the US and can’t pay their workers a living wage. They’ll gladly stop you from watching your shows though because their marketing department needs a salary.
No it does not mean you will pick it. It means you are more likely to pick it. Given all else being equal you are vastly more likely to pick something familiar than something unfamiliar. And it all comes down to trends and statistics. The hope is that more people will go for your brand that leads to more sales then the cost of the marketing in the first place. You might not go for NordVPN for other reasons, but can you say that about every product you have been advertised to? If anything the more you know about a product the less advertising will affect you in the familiarity sense - these adverts are not so much meant for you as they are for people not familiar with VPNs at all.
But there are a lot of studies on the topic like this and this meta analysis that seem to conclude that advertising is effective. And there are a lot of studies on what various aspects of adverts make them more effective. I am yet to see any research that says adverts are ineffective overall, though I have not dug that deeply into it.
There used to be a business joke you’d hear in the ‘60s, often attributed to John Wanamaker, a pioneer in marketing:
“Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don’t know which half!”
The joke highlights the dilemma many businesses face in evaluating the effectiveness of their advertising spend. It’s remained relevant in the advertising and marketing industries, reflecting the challenges in measuring the impact of advertising efforts.
You just became an ad for mullvad...
Good products are worth sharing to help shape future products. Grass roots only works if the product is worth using. Vote with your wallet to help shape future products. While the previously poster can be viewed as an "ad", the post is same as a next door neighbor bringing it up. Mullvad doesn't do affiliate marketing or pay influencers.
I used to use Mullvad but now I use a different service, but especially like to support open source products.
2 second google for some numbers: “In 2022, global internet advertising revenue stood at 484 billion U.S. dollars”
One of the metrics you measure when running ads is return on investment, and companies will soon go bust if you aren’t making money on your ad spend.
Except how is ROI estimated? I can imagine it being done both intelligently and stupidly and so I’m curious how well it is actually done.
Part of what I’m sceptical about is that it seems like a practice driven either by a lot of FOMO and vague thinking or a system where it only makes sense to run ads because everyone else is.
This is all measured and not really estimated. If you think that any substantial chunk of that 484Billion is being done 'stupidly' then you're just making presumptuous incorrect guesses without knowing much about the industry.
Revenue (sales) - Investment (total costs) = ROI There is ROAS which similiar: Revenue - Ad Spend = ROAS You can measure things in more detail like CPA (cost per acquisition) to work out how much ad spend you have per sale, again this is a measurement not an estimation.
Where previously there was mass advertisements to millions of people like TV or radio ads which were only affordable to large companies. Advertisers now can target the exact type of person they're trying to market to for their niche which is a lot cheaper and so more accessible to smaller businesses. To me that makes business sense to do if I can optimise to the right ROI, and nothing to do with FOMO or vague thinking.
How well are sales and ad spend correlated and how well are spurious correlations accounted for?
you're really determined to stick to your belief haha, don't worry about it man I don't think I'm going to sway your mind on this so peace !
Unfortunately I’m genuinely curious. Honestly is a little disheartening though that the first piece of technical pushback has you bailing out. “Correlation is not causation” being stats 101 and all.
If you do have any more to say though I’d happily read it! If not .., all the best.
The fact that companies pour millions into ads means it works for them. Don’t assume that just because you and I (and probably most users on here) aren’t susceptible, it doesn’t mean the majority of the population aren’t too.
These subconscious effects are indeed the most effective ways for an ad to work. However, if an ad is obnoxious enough for you to remember, it can get you to actively avoid the advertised product as well.
It can. But the average impact is still positive.
Yeah, I like to think I'm immune to advertising until I see one that makes me think "damn, I haven't had Burger Restaurant in a while." The worst part is that I'm fully cognizant of what's happening, and yet I still want some and it'll make me think about it for a while afterward, simply because I'm familiar with the food and how it (usually) tastes.
But, joke's on you, Burger Restaurant! I'm fucking broke, son! Now we're BOTH having our time wasted
Yeah, people love to shit on it but everyone knows raid shadow legends
Well, things affecting you unconsciously should be plain illegal. Though that's how ads are supposed to work since like 50s and earlier, and I think I remember a Colombo episode where what you said is mentioned.
Um, No. Basically everything affects you subconsciously in some way. Both good and bad. That is a terrible and unenforceable thing to make illegal.
Have you tried to find a principle by which one can filter out this particular thing (advertising namely)? Like the "25th cadre" etc. Before saying it's unenforceable and terrible to make illegal.
There are regulations about what you can and can't put into edible products. There are regulations about what you can and can't use as fuel. There are regulations on materials used in construction, so that they wouldn't be as toxic as 50 years ago, on paints, on glue and what not.
Though, of course, there's a solution from another direction which is fundamentally better, simply abolishing trademark laws. But that'd be kinda revolutionary and highly unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Sorry, I was more talking about this in particular:
It is far too general a statement to be enforceable. There are things you can better enforce that focus on the negative effects of marketing, but things affecting you unconsciously is to vague and affects both positive and negative behaviours.
These are all specific things though, not general broad reaching unenforceable statements. Which I agree with, there is a lot you can do with regulation that prevents bad behaviours of corporations, but these are generally specific things that are trying to solve some actual problem. And in this case you need to specific what things you are trying to prevent.
Even for just adverts, trying to ban all adverts that affect you unconsciously would be a ban on all adverts and marketing. Is that reasonable? I would not say so. It would be better to go after specific things like the regulations around advertising cigarettes. Or more relevant to today, maybe something around the shear amount of information advertising agency collect on you, IMO that is one of the bigger problems with them these days. Or the shear number of them that you get shoved into every aspect. Or putting adverts in products that you have already paid for. Those would be far more reasonable things that you could enforce.
I would. Never in my life has an advert made me buy anything I need.
When you need something, you go and find it. And when it finds you, then it needs you and not vice versa.
When the process is "I identify a need, I look for something matching characteristics I need and then I purchase it", the results are better than it is "I look at something and suddenly have an urge to buy it most likely formed by many adverts seen, heard etc", in the latter situation I usually realize that I didn't need the thing at all.
Thus adverts belong to expositions and catalogues and lists you go and find, and not anywhere else.
Depends on your legal preferences, of course. Most of my life I'm a libertarian, so naturally against banning anything consensual, but also against trademark protection, and abolishing trademark protection would reduce the usefulness of ads.
Can't fight that anyway.
I have a better idea - you can be required to watch through ads to get to the page\video\etc you've come for, but don't get stuffed with them in the middle, that becomes illegal. Like those license agreements for software which nobody reads.
IRL that would be - no big unavoidable ads on billboards, but you can come to something like a gazette stand and look through brochures.
The point is that if you look at an advert, you do that consciously, with intention to do just that.
That's even explainable to geriatric lawmakers.
Yes, that's a good idea and an already popular one.
Ads work. These companies wouldn't spend millions in them otherwise. Consumer behavior is among the most studied psychological phenomenoms in the world. If you show an ad to one person it's near impossible to tell if it had an effect or not but show it to a thousand people and you'll see it.
That's not how ads work.
Yeah I feel mostly this way too, but the data is solid, ads are effective. Even on me, very rarely. And I'm the type of person who doesn't ever click ads, out of spite. Even if it's exactly what I was already looking to actively buy. But every now and then they give me an idea that I pop open a new tab, research, and then buy.
That's not really how they work, or that is not the only way. Their point is to put the logo, slogans, company etc into your memory. This way when you're shopping for something specific, then the brand pops out to you because you've seen it and it gives you a sense of familiarity and hence, higher trust.
I have a couple times but every single time it turned out the ad was blatantly misleading or simply lying. Fuck ads and every person involved in that industry.
Likewise. I don't think I've ever been moved or compelled to buy, check out, or even pay attention to a YouTube ad.
To be honest, I once fell victim on reddit to an add that promoted AFK-Arena. It turned out to actually be a decent game.
Shitty AdBlock Plus.
ABP has always been a shitty adblocker because it's meant to make money rather than actually block ads effectively. They've been accepting money from ad networks to allow their "unintrusive ads" (an oxymoron) for over a decade now, and I'm sure Google is paying for this to happen now.
shrug
I'm okay with unobtrusive ads as long as the place serving them up has a modicum of common sense sensibilities about their impact and has a rigorous enough vetting process that they'll never be used as payloads for malicious software. Ads can be a way to find out about products I might otherwise never know about. I'm not outright against all ads as a concept. Hell, sometimes it's an actual art form in rare cases.
I'm just against them taking up more space than the content itself, impeding my access to the content in any way, hijacking my property, or getting hijacked by malware which then hijacks my property.
AdBlock Minus
AdBlock Divided by Zero
Too bad Google doesn't want to have a conversation, at least one that isn't at gunpoint. I wouldn't mind unintrusive ads. If it stayed at banner ads and things like that, I would probably enable them. Shoving crap in the middle of videos just makes it a horrible experience, so I'm going to get rid of them.
An Adblocker allowing ads to.. start a conversation that's already been had and over for decades at this point.
People don't like intrusive ads. Give intrusive ads and we'll always find ways around them. It's a story as old as the internet. Google is no exception. You may have billions of dollars and thousands of employees but nearly everyone in the damned world hates ads. You can try to fight it all you want. The only reason that nearly anyone puts up with ads is they want to support the creator or don't yet know they can avoid the ads. Even those supporting the creators don't like the damned things.
I've seen so, so many people watching ads on their phones
And I am fucking loving it. With this move, Google has effectively started an arms race between the team they have implementing this Adblock-blocking crap and the vast majority of the technically competent internet users in the world.
Unless the rules of how the internet works fundamentally change, Google is not going to win.
Why do you think they were pushing so hard for WEI? They did try to fundamentally change how the internet works.
Precisely.
i wouldn’t be surprised if this was partly a war between the team they have implementing this and the team they have implementing this, in their spare time
I'm not that optimistic. They could implement some sort of aggressive DRM. In the US, all they have to do is label protection as DRM and then it becomes illegal to even have any discussion of how to circumvent it. The overwhelming majority of users aren't going to bother with any ad blocking. In the end, this could end up hurting Google if people build decentralized Youtube alternatives and then they could take viewers away from Youtube.
They would end up shooting themselves in the foot. They are on shaky ground already and it would only take a new platform that can entice a few of their top content producers over to lose enough chunks of their revenues to hurt. And all they have do is keep fucking around to find out what a tech-literate group of nerds who hate big corps can do when they are aligned in a certain direction.
They can get the rest of Big Tech and the MSM to start smearing the platform as "far right extremist" and spreading "fringe conspiracy theories."
Yeah, that is easy enough to build into the algorithm. Deprioritizing that sort of nonsense effectively would mitigate it gaining a foothold. The only reason why the current platforms don't (in fact they prioritize it in many cases) is because discord is being equated with engagement and they see that as good for business. If you aren't worried about business, then you can set up your priority algorithm to be more rational and egalitarian.
Well, in the US you can legally talk about it so long as you do not actually do it. It's similar to how an actor is able to talk about commiting murder without getting in trouble.
By some argument, section 103 of the DMCA (which is what grandparent post is referring to) does make it illegal to even talk about DRM circumvention methods.
If youtube implements an "access control measure" by splicing the ads with the video and disabling the fast-forward button during the ad, and you go on a forum and say "Oh yeah, you can write a script that detects the parts that are ads because the button is disabled, and force-fast-forwards through those", some lawyer would argue that you have offered to the public a method to circumvent an access control measure, and therefore your speech is illegal. If you actually write the greasemonkey script and post it online, that would definitely be illegal.
This is abhorrent to the types among us for whom "code IS free speech", but this scenario is not just a hypothetical. DMCA has been controversial for a long time. Digg collapsed in part because of the user revolt over the admins deleting any post containing the leaked AACS decryption key, which is just a 32-digit number. Yet "speaking" the number alone, aloud, on an online platform (and nothing else!) was enough for MPAA to send cease and desist letters to Digg under DMCA, and Digg folded.
Thanks for the heads-up. Definitely hope that if something like splicing ads in that some country like Russia or any other country that doesn't care about US law or US copyright law would be able to write, host, and update methods to get around it on a server they control.
the "open source hackers" are always going to win this one, for a simple reason. if the data of the youtube video is handed to a user at any point, then the information it contains can be scrubbed and cleaned of ads. no exceptions.
if google somehow solves all ad-blocking techniques within browser, then new plugins will be developed on the operating system side to put a black square of pixels and selectively mute audio over the advert each time. if they solve that too? then people will hack the display signal going out at the graphics card level so that it is cleaned before it hits the monitor. if they beat that using some stupid encryption trick? well, then people will develop usb plugin tools that physically plug into the monitors at the display end, that artificially add the black boxes and audio mutes at the monitor display side.
if they beat that? someone, someone will jerry rig a literal black square of paper on some servos and wires, and physical audio switch to do the same thing, an actual, physical advert blocker. i'm sure once someone works that out, a mass produced version would be quite popular as a monitor attachment (in a timeline that gets so fucked that we would need this).
if that doesn't work? like, google starts coding malware to seek and destroy physical adblockers? then close your eyes and mute your headphones for 30 seconds, lol. the only way google is solving that one is with hitsquads and armed drones to make viewers RESUME VIEWING
as long as a youtube video is available to access without restriction, then google cannot dictate how the consumer experiences that video. google cannot win this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
RESUME VIEWING
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
good bot
I've tried to like Piped but half the time, the video just stays buffering indefinitely
It's how we did it with MythTV and over the air or cable tv. The algorithms will just save a file in post, that has the ads removed. And that was 15yrs ago.
I don't see how we escape ads if YouTube splits the video in two and ads play on a third of the screen alongside the video. Or in a chiron
And if Google went nuclear and starts embedding the ad into the videos themselves?
the current solution for that would be similar to the current "sponsor block" plugins, here's an example
crowdsourced start and endpoints for embedded sponsorships
something like this tool, but for future embedded google adverts
Without talking about the resources it would require, youtube could totally only serve the ad until it has been "watched". And no amount of sponsor block or similar software would help. These software only work because youtube allow you to navigate the video. If they decide that you have to fully download a 30s ad video, and that you can't ask for the video for the first 30s, then you wouldn't be able to do anything (or at the very max, just hide the ad and wait 30s on a blank screen).
i would choose the blank screen over watching an ad, every single time
Or the adblock could buffer the video and play it on a delay ad free. People will be fine with doing something else for a minute.
Better yet, have it done in the background -- particularly for new videos on channels you're subscribed to.
People could do that out of protest, and upload videos as proof of them doing it. Advertisers would start pulling out if they think they're being ripped off like that.
Eventually at some point, the nuclear option would be if the government decided that sending back false information saying an ad had been viewed is computer fraud.
I don't think the relative amount of people that would do that would be high enough to really end up mattering, and it's not like, in that circumstance, advertisers can tell whether or not people are actually watching their ads anyways, which has always been the most dubious part of ads. And, is the biggest advantage of the internet and youtube, is that you can tell, you're allowed access to those metrics. I don't see a reality where youtube just goes to basically like, shittier cable advertising, forcing everyone to watch all the ads all the time, and that becomes somehow attractive to advertisers. I think, if that were the case, advertisers would probably pull out just on that basis and go where they know exactly what content they're putting their ads in front of, which has always been the disadvantage of youtube.
Even if they did that it's not impossible to find some exploits. No software is free of bugs which can be exploited, especially networked ones which are often finicky because they have many systems in place to pretend flawless execution. Just look at the TCP protocol, it's dropping packets left and right but users usually don't notice because they get spammed till one gets through
How do those extensions that skip download countdown timers work then?
Those are usually handled by JavaScript being run on the client side, I think, so it just speeds that up
Sure but my point was if there's a practical way to do what the guy above me was proposing, then I would assume those sketchy ass sites would employ the same tactics. Not a programmer though.
All other hope forlorn, there's still ML to recognize and cut out ads.
Or one can download the same video with as many as possible metrics different, so that ads would be different, and then compare the two videos. Ugh.
This type of war happened 15 years ago with Hulu vs Xbox. Hulu won because despite there always being an exploit it was always several days before a work around was uploaded. Eventually it was Hulu on xbmc for 1 day, then 3 days no Hulu on and on until everyone gave up.
YouTube can't win this race when they don't control the platform you're viewing it on. You can always install 'something' to get around it.
The solution to that is to control the platform using Chrome, Android etc.
YouTube's end game is baked in ads. There are streaming services that already do this so it's not impossible. It would not surprise me one iota if YouTube isn't working on this now.
Once this happens, I suspect that the last round of people that have been holding out to subscribe to premium will either cave and do so or people will simply abandon YouTube.
Baked in ads run counter to googles entire ad philosophy though, to say nothing of the technical challenges that poses. Googles big selling point right now is targeted ads where the ads they serve you are based on your activities that they've tracked. With baked in ads every viewer of that stream gets the same ads, so while they could traget ads based on the contents of the stream, they would no longer be able to target the ads at specific viewers.
There's also the problem that baked in ads are in many ways actually easier to skip. There are already extensions like sponsorblock that can skip specific segments of videos, and if it's not served as a separate stream it will be more difficult to give special treatment to the ad portion of the video.
Baked in personalized ads aren't impossible.
I can't remember which streaming service it was (I want to say Tubi?) But they had baked in personalized ads. The technology isn't far fetched and certainly possible with what youtube already has.
Sponsorblock only works on specific, known timed segments.
Say a video you want to watch has 8 places that YouTube can put up an ad (as determined by YouTube). Out of those 8 places, it decides to serve 5 ads. But the ads are of different lengths.
Sponsorblock can't block those ads.
I'm not saying people won't try but YouTube has all the information it needs to serve intrusive ads. And, I hate to say it, but they have the market dominance to pull the rug under premium subscribers feet because you know that in a year or two, they are going to start serving ads to those people too.
That's not true though, sponsorblock is user reported, that's why it works for sponsor segments and in-video ads of all lengths and locations in videos. If ads get baked into a video they can't be taken out or changed, since that's what getting "baked in" means in this context, and as soon as a single user reports the ad it will be blocked by sponsorblock for anyone who uses it. If it can be taken out or changed, then it's not truly baked in and that can be exploited.
Ah I think we have a different definition of "baked in".
What I mean is that the video does not change urls or sources when playing the ad and the video. So it looks like an unbroken video feed but on the back end, YouTube added the video between the designated time frames.
I get what you mean that if ads never change and are forever in the video file then sponsorblock will continue to work. But I don't think this is what YouTube will do.
If they make it in any way removable no matter which end its on then other people will be able to figure out how to remove it too.
All they need to do is fuzz the time when the ad plays to defeat this.
The ads would be baked into the stream, not the source video. This is a fairly trivial problem, and I'm surprised they aren't doing it already.
As soon as on user does it? Welcome, DoS attack!
This is completely wrong. You are serving video stream, you just substitute for the ad you would serve the user, at a randomized point in the video. YouTube doesn't do this because they don't want to reimplement the tracking and logging, but if it was financially necessary it wouldn't be hard to do.
They would then also need to implement a new (and much less intuitive than 4m20s) way of referring to specific timestamps, since with ads at random points the timecode would be dynamically changing for each viewing.
I have some background in tech but admit I'm a long way out of touch now. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're working on back end stuff to have personalised ads "baked in". I know the resource implications of this are huge, but it still wouldn't surprise me.
The resource implications are the problem. The cost - in terms of compute time - to bake those ads eats into the profit earned from advertising as a whole. Since only a fraction of users adblock, they would probably lose more money than they gained.
They'll consider it once the compute cost inserting the ads is low enough that it's worth it. I have no idea if we've reached that point yet, but I'm guessing not, since otherwise they'd already be doing it.
Most of the formats served by YouTube are already chunked, which means they can easily insert different chunks of video (ads, etc) at various points in the stream by changing the manifest. This is trivial, computationally. The complexity lies in building the mechanisms to make it work.
The non-chunked formats are only used by older devices, and are lower quality. Those would require re-encoding to change, but few users see them anyway, and those users probably don't adblock.
Platforms can now insert ads directly into the manifest file into totally random timestamps. The file chunks' names follow the same pattern as the original video. You cannot filter or prepare for it. Probably that will be the future. (AWS MediaConvert can do this for example.)
And they only create the manifest file upon starting the stream so you can inject personalized ads too.
I guess we will have to compare the last video frame and/or audio sample of every segment to the first frame and/or sample of the next segment or something like that?! Maybe the effects of "the loudness war" in ads will help us detect ads solely by the loudness change within the audiostream?
But don’t they do that on their tv app already, that’s why DNS blockers don’t work? I’m pretty sure they serve targeted ads on the tv app.
Wouldn't SponsorBlock be a way around this?
Platforms can now insert ads directly into the manifest file into totally random timestamps. The file chunks' names follow the same pattern as the original video. You cannot filter or prepare for it. Probably that will be the future. (AWS MediaConvert can do this for example.)
Meh, download the vid, then have software figure out where the ads are. It's possible.
Hell, even just present a button for the user to hit when an ad segment starts.
A lot of people are saying this isn't possible, theyre wrong. It's called "Server Side Ad Insertion (SSAI)" and tldr it places the ads directly in the video itself. One of the popular streaming services uses SSAI, another uses SGAI. Theyre both something the CDN must implement alongside the client.
The technical explanation: SSAI, at least with HLS, places the ad segments within the media playlist. This means there is no additional and easy to block call to the ad server to ask for ads (that's Server Guided Ad Insertion, SGAI). SGAI places markers where ads need to go in the media playlist, and the client asks the server for some ads to place there.
There's also CSAI which is fully client side (the client decides where to place ads and how many) but I'd like to doubt youtube uses this. Doesn't seem very smart.
Even if, lets say, youtube baked the ads into the content segments, it wouldn't solve anything. There will still be markers and metadata to find where they are (the client needs these to notify ad partners you watched the ad, and to display the yellow "ad" markers, and to display a timer) which can be used to skip them client-side with an extension.
Overall YouTube probably won't win because there's always something to do to bypass ads. Some methods are easier to bypass than others, but they're all enforced client-side in the end. The only thing they could possibly do to have even a fraction of a chance would be to block you from getting the next content segments until the ad duration has passed in real-time. That's a last resort, however, because that will likely hurt QoS and client stability. There's a reason it isn't already done. Don't forget, also, the developers who work on this stuff don't like ads either. Nobody is going out of their way to prevent ad blocking beyond what the execs want, and the execs don't know what they want.
Do note that although I specify HLS there is likely little to no difference with other streaming tech, I just want to be clear about my experience.
If ads are inserted at random time stamps and the client reports the watched intervals, then the server doesn’t need to communicate which intervals are ads.
That could still be bypassed by building a library of ads in the ad blocker, then examining the video feed when an ad is encountered, looking it up in the DB, and automatically jumping ahead as many seconds as its expected duration, but that would be a substantially heavier operation than what uBlock Origin currently does.
It also wouldn’t enable forcing users to watch the ads, since the client wouldn’t know to enforce an unskippable segment from 1:38 to 2:08. And that’s probably the real reason it won’t be implemented - an executive probably has “must preserve these features” as a constraint, so an engineer wouldn’t even propose this feature to them.
The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because it is a fundamental change to the architecture of the platform, but will very much happen.
Twitch has increased their ad blocking techniques for the last 3 years or so. Twitch has been a lot more advanced and aggressive with their method. Yet, there are still ways to subvert the ads on twitch. If I didnt read lemmy, i wouldnt even know youtube was doing anything. I have just basic adblocking ublock
Although every once in a while, twitch will release a new technique and it might take 24 hours to solve.
You would be surprised how many people will just uninstall the ad blocker the third time YouTube isn't working for 24 hours.
Every time YouTube or twitch make a change, a certain percentage of users give up, which means more revenue.
The reverse of this is every time I watch youtube without an ad blocker, their ads are SO obtrusive I go right back to "Nah fuck this, FUCK their ability to make money if this is how they go about it"
I have changed my programs because twitch won against its methods. I used to use alt twitch player to get around the ad system. The app creator didnt care to update anymore and twitch's update broke the system.
All that did though was make me find alternative ways to ad block. If it came to it, if i was unable to block ads. I'd just never watch. Ads are usually full volume screaming at you, so its like an assault on you.
Either way, i think having more viewers is more important than getting an ad to EVERY watcher. IMO Youtube and twitch both lose money on offering their services to everyone. Some people will upload/stream to 0 viewers and i think that its like 50% of their creators. Thats a ton of wasted bandwidth and storage.
IMHO i think twitch could charge something like 3-5$ a month to broadcast a stream. Youtube could charge something like 10c an upload or something.
I get users needing to create content to grow viewerbase, but charge something extremely minimal to get back a little something.
I think you would see significantly less streamers if you did that and they need streamers equally as much as they need viewers.
I bet a lot of the current top streamers would have never given it a chance if they had to pay first.
More content creators are always good, but theres also people on there just wasting resources that will never be successful. Always stream to 0-2 people.
Idk, it's a tough choice. Which is why they most likely would never use a pay to create style.
I think that's a big part of why Google doesn't fight (and in fact helps) the banking and streaming companies that want to lock down Android more. It's harder to block ads if you can't block them in the browser and can't block them system wide via hosts file. (Yes you can use VPN + DNS, but it's a lot more battery intensive.)
"against all odds" lmao what. Anyone who's been paying attention since the dawn of the internet would know that youtube isn't winning this one. The odds were 100% in the favour of the hackers.
lol someone hasn't been paying attention to how this stuff generally works...
Never under estimate the outrage of a nerd.
They even made a series of movies about it.
I remember the mini-war between AOL and third-party IM clients. There were days where AOL would send 15kB patches to AIM multiple times a day to break compatibility with the other apps. And they would then fix it within hours.
In the end, AOL gave up.
Wow that's full on antitrust surely? Or was this before the regulatory precedents were set for Internet providers?
Well, not really.
So AIM was built on an existing chat protocol called OSCAR. The same protocol used in other services. So people eventually figured out how to make chat clients that could log into many different IM services on one app.
This was not sanctioned by AOL, but they allowed it at first. Then they decided you HAVE to use the official AIM client to talk to people on AIM. The third-party developers ignored AOL, so they entered into a tug-a-war match for a while.
Because AOL was using known software to make AIM work, there was only so much they could do to keep their client working while also blocking everyone else. Eventually it became too much of a hassle, so AOL relented and third-party clients kept working until the service was shutdown.
Ah I see. I thought the implication here was that they were doing this to ICQ and the likes
You just reminded me of DeadAim I used to use back in the day. More features. Could log into multiple accounts at the same time with tabs to view different buddy lists. Those were the days...
What Google seems to forget or simply not care about is I can always just... leave.
I used reddit a lot more than I use YouTube.
If enough viewers and content creators were to jump ship, they'd scramble to change their tune.
That's a big if though. Unless an actual creator-exodus happens, it's not going to happen.
It will happen eventually. These kinds of adversarial arrangements between parties are inherently unstable. The enshittification cycle only ends when a site properly collapses. If you think they couldn't get shittier, give it time. They'll find a way.
All we need is for a good alternative to become more viable and for the site to have a few more exodus events and it'll lose its critical mass. Ultimately I think most platforms are going to have to become federated, it's the only way to avoid enshittification and still grow the network. Growing the network is important because it is the size of youtube and other centralised sites' networks that gives them their stability and utility. It's the network effect.
This is where the biggest challenge lies. Doing what YouTube does is not easy. I don't think anyone could do it all. So it would have to be picking a choosing. Can anyone upload hours/days/years worth of video content? Are the people who put up those videos able to get paid without having to create their own relationships with advertisers or asking for viewer donations? How are copyright violations handled? Or more sinister video content?
Peertube is a federated system that already handles video.
Moderation is handled by instances with more personal mods.
Bandwidth is handled via multiple instances & p2p protocols so viewers help distribute the load.
I think you're overstating how difficult youtube's job is. A lot of that work is problems youtube creates for thsmselves by trying to squeeze their platform for more money. A federated platform doesn't have that issue.
Yes, things get easier when you take paying creators out of the mix.
Why do they even do that. Instagram, tiktok don't share their ad revenue with their content creators.
Not sure. But it is one of the cornerstones of YouTube. Also tiktok does pay creators.
Youtube pays creators basically nothing.
$10-$30/1,000 views doesn't sound like much. Except the people who make a career out of YouTube are regularly producing 100k+ view videos. It adds up. It's one of the things you can pick and choose to leave out of a competitor. But it is a major reason why people put videos on YouTube.
That's the absolute top end. Most accounts see 50 cents per thousand.
Why lie?
Do you have a source for that? What are you basing it on?
Idk, what are your sources? What the fuck? You wanna demand sources, gib first.
So did you just make up a number? I did try some searching before I spat out mine. It wasn't extensive research and figured anyone doing any cursory check would come away with the same answer. Which is why I didn't bother linking anything. I couldn't find anything that said as low as $0.50/1000 and have never heard a creator saying that low. Hence me asking where you got your number.
https://blog.hootsuite.com/how-much-does-youtube-pay-per-view/
https://influencermarketinghub.com/how-much-do-youtubers-make/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20a%20YouTuber%20earns,%2418%20for%20every%201%2C000%20views.
https://medium.com/swlh/how-much-does-youtube-pay-516ea8cd338d
I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that YouTube is nothing without both its creator and viewers.
A viewer-exodus and a creator-exodus would be tied together, they both feedback into each other.
I even get why YouTube doubledown on catering to their advertisers over the creators and viewers, that's just money talking.
I'm just saying I don't owe them my time or attention.
They would hardly be the first Internet giant to fall, thinking they're too big to fail, not that I see it happening soon though.
Very true. But if Reddit didn't fall I very much doubt YouTube will.
Perhaps you and I might leave, but it won't be enough.
And creators wont leave despite making less and less from youtube and relying more and more ftom direct support from fans, like through patreon.
I went through a period of de-googling a couple of years ago. Swapping browser, mobile os, search engine, storage, maps, music, video purchases, voice assistant and even email service was relatively simple, there are alternatives out there which do the job just as well if not better than what Google offer.
The only exception is YouTube, yea there are individual sites that occasionally offer some of the videos I want (often with a subscription attached), there are some federated systems like NewPipe which have some videos but there is no one offering remotely the quantity or quality of what you can get on YouTube for free.
As the article states, it’s basically a monopoly at this point without a viable alternative.
What FOSS mobile OS are you using?
Non-Google Android.
GrapheneOS
What are you using instead for Maps and email?
I use Organic maps and K9 mail
k9 mail has a really poor rating on the app store. I hear Thunderbird will be revamping it though. Are you happy with where it is at right now?
Yeah, it works great. I haven't had any problems
I've had good success with FairEmail its open source and on Fdroid appstore but google made it so it will only work if you download through the play store which is BS.
Definitely fair email, code is solid and so is the dev. Its got more features for customization than any other mobile email client. Super frequently updated too. And no ads even in the unpaid version.
Apple Maps and Fastmail.
Fastmail is paid but the 1Password and disposable email address system makes it worth it for me.
Not going to happen. Most of us, and the ones making the service profitable pay.
You have no value for Google and lemmy isn't a population Google cares about in the first place.
Exactly, I had people tell me that we should support YouTube, because it costs money and if we don't it will disappear.
I would celebrate the day it would happen, YouTube is actually the reason we don't have much competition there. They used their position and Google monopoly in other areas to establish this monopoly.
There's creators out there running a non YouTube channel in parallel, mostly on Odysee. Good to see an alternative out there.
I just looked up Odysee. They use Google AdSense on their site, so really all you’re getting is a bad YouTube
Right enough. They're also owned by Google! Probably not a good alternative then. PeerTube any good?
Fwiw, Google doesn’t own Odysee https://twitter.com/LBRYcom/status/1321862776780980225
They probably do smell.
I’ve heard of PeerTube, but haven’t looked into it yet
The only one I know of is Nebula, and I only know of it because of ads. Ironically, ads on YouTube.
That is and big if though. Yeah you, me and half the people here might leave over this, but we block ads already and so are not highly valued to YouTube or a lot of the creators and are only a small drop in the ocean of viewers.
YouTube is betting on more people turning off ad blockers then those that leave. And i am glad to see that it might be having a small effect on more people actually discovering ad blockers instead. Which I bet is something YouTube did not expect to see.
No one in the 90s could imagine the internet without AOL or Yahoo either, and yet..
Or the great Myspace collapse of 2008. Digg before that. Tumblr most recently.
Big sites go boom fairly often.
Now, watching Google go Boom, that's gonna be like modules breaking loose of the ISS and rez-entering the atmosphere. Drawn out over months, as one wing goes, government breaks up another wing, class action lawsuits bankrupt another wing.
Alphabets circling the drain. And good. Fuck em. Fuck Apple, Fuck Meta, Fuck Amazon, Fuck Reddit.
Just a couple more years now and imma nominate Craig from Craigslist for all the years nobel prizes for officially winning the internet.
Specific niche forums, Craigslist and Wikipedia are the last bits of honestness and fun online. And ymmv with Craigslist people being honest.
In what world Craigslist is honest and Alphabet is circling the drain? They make billions of profit per quarter and they have majority control of the biggest two platforms worldwide (mobile and web). We are not in the wild west years of the early web. It will be decades before Meta or Alphabet collapse, in favor of TikTok or a similar, or even worse, competitor. Mastodon and lemmy are an exception and a niche, not a rule.
Wishing something very hard doesn't make it true.
Can't fucking wait to see Google disbanded hopefully in my lifetime , then Amazon
Top execs fucking dragged to the street and get their just desserts drawn and quartered.
Why would creators leave? They only earn money from users that watch ads or use premium. Ad blocker users leaving doesn't affect them.
And if you "just leave", guess what? You just saved them a few bucks in bandwidth. It's a win-win for them.
It's YouTube, they don't need "exposure". They are out to make a profit.
I donate to creators I like.
Don’t be evil turned into straight up evil with Manifest V3. Already switched to FF as my primary and started shifting my use of Evil’s services.
They ditch the "do no evil" motto years ago when seeking military contract to help them kill people
I was suspicious the moment they said "don't be evil".
Non-evil people don't need to say it.
"against all odds" my left asshole. This is always the way of hacker vs defense, it's always an arms race and the attacking side always has the advantage.
How many assholes do you have?
A left one and a right one.
And a center one. Well, that's what I call myself. The central asshole.
Not really. There are lots of protocols and such that haven't been broken in any meaningful ways. Attackers have advantage is a weird thing to say.
Defense is always playing reactive. Attack gets to be creative and figure out how to break whatever tools defense has. Defense has to wait until the vulnerability is found and then deal with it. It's the nature of the arms race with regards to cyber security.
YouTube's users when they adhere to the YouTube TOS:
quoth Rage Against The Machine:
'fuck you, I won't do what you tell me'
sigh developers will ALWAYS be able to outsmart companies stealing from others.
I was gonna say, the Internet wouldn't be what it is today without those so-called open source hackers. They're the giants that Google and all the rest are standing on the shoulders of.
We're going to relearn this lesson with LLMs. Open source is a maximalist approach to productivity.
How exactly do these youtube front ends survive Google anyways? Why can't Google simply block all the traffic coming from these front ends in order to kill them off entirely? Kind of interesting that some ad blockers are having a hard time being effective on YT while these front ends seem to be having no issues accessing videos on the site.
Client side versus server.
To use a metaphor: the internet is a mailperson, and a YouTube video is a package. The mailperson hands it off to me. Then I have to fumble with opening the box to get the item inside.
Well, let's say I have a butler. The butler can take the package from the mailman, and rip out all the unnecessary stuff, and give me what's inside the box. The butler is adblock.
YouTube/Google cannot mess with my butler. Why? Because it's outside of their power. They can try to do things like force a signature before giving me the package. But guess what? My butler can sign off my package. YouTube knows to get to me, they have to go through my butler - period.
So there's no "blocking traffic" because once the package is sent, they have to deal with my butler. And they can make all sorts of detectors on the package, but we'll keep finding ways to bypass it and convince the package that my butler can totally sign for me.
There is no way to determine if the request comes from an alternative frontend or a legitimate user. Even if they start blocking all public instances of alternatives, which is highly unfeasible since most of them use VPN and blocking all VPNs is extremely restrictive for legitimate users too, you can host them locally.
If someone hosts their own front end, Google has no way of knowing whether or not it's legitimate.
Really enjoying LibreTube on my phone, for listening to long videos without the video on screen. Its audio mode is very clean in my opinion.
Google could implement Widevine DRM for all videos.
In order for someone to experience the video, it has to go from digital to analog. That will always be the weakpoint of DRM. Someone can always put a middleman application in that point. Expect corporations to push for chip implants that allow them to directly control what you experience.
my wife watches a lot of youtube via PS4, so ads aren't blockable. but she discovered when an ad starts playing if you go to the 'i' icon, select you don't want to see this ad, then click resume video, the video starts playing again. not exactly a blocker and requires those manual steps, but beats watching 30 second unskippable ads every 5 minutes
Anybody who thinks this is "against all odds" doesn't understand the Internet very well.
Against all odds? This is a game that's been going on for year, hacker vs Corp, and the hacker always wins. Same shit as anticheat in games, it's a constant arms race but the hacker is nearly always a step ahead.
Open source Hackers FTW!
Please donate and keep Open Source as it is
$ mpv "youtube-url"best youtube adblocker.Or (If you have the storage), yt-dlp.
mpv uses that (or youtube-dl) in background. I think yt-dlp still needs a config change?
Yt-dlp is the successor for YouTube-dl I believe you can have it function as a drop-in replacement if want to.
What's this? How to use it? Can someone please ELI5 ?
What's this?
video player in linux. I think VLC can also do that
mpv video player with mpv-sponsorblock script using youtube-dl/yt-dlp hooks, run from command line / launcher.
Yes, there's a sponsorblock plugin for VLC too.
Not just linux, Android and Windows too. Even embeded devices, MPV basically supports everything
For some reason I'm getting:
Seems weird.
Probably need to update. With plain yt-dlp you just run "yt-dlp -U"
That was correct, but yt-dlp is disabled on Debian and Ubuntu (apt), so I had to go to the Debian archives and install manually.
"opensource hackers" lol
I believe this phrase uses the original, older meaning: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/309252/has-hacker-definitely-gained-a-negative-connotation
A question for the tech savy, free alternatives to youtube like newpipe relies on youtube servers to access content, right? I mean, if youtube were to disappear magically we wouldn't have a palce where to upload and store so many Gb of videos?
Am I missing something (I know I'm probably missing a lot!)? Thanks in advance for the replies!
newpipe is just a client for accessing youtubes servers, yes, so if youtube went away we would need to use vimeo or something else (maybe peertube, open source yt alternative?)
Thank you! Who pays for vimeo/peertube hosting costs though?
Vimeo is a private operation just like YouTube.
Peertube is a "federated" system where videos are hosted among the computers of the people who upload videos.
There really needs to be a way to seed peertube videos without leaving the window open. A firefox extension even. They have extensions that do bittorrent, it shouldn't be hard. Videos could end with a "click here to seed this video" message
Yeah I was really surprised when I started looking into it that there's no "remote bandwidth runners" option. Although I think Peertube's devs may be just starting to think about that kind of thing since they just added support for remote transcode runners
Thanks!
Youtube is vying X for a internet death while holding the door open for a less greedy rival
Vimeo: "Today is the day!"
PeerTube would be preferable, all corporate monopolies turn out the same in the end.
To me it seems weird that YouTuber is doing this at all. They should know that they can't win, I doubt their CEO is that incompetent. Especially after all this time of wasted effort on their side to overpower a very small fraction of users who actually block ads online. Could it be to draw attention from something else that's actually more worrying?
Because as an AdBlock user, since I bothered configuring them and using only ublock I haven't had almost any popups and my experience, especially now on the later stages, is exactly like it was before the ban.
I can't help but think there's more to this because they can't be wasting resources, further damage their reputation and risk absolute monopoly on video platforms for a fruitless endeavor.
Even if YouTube isn't profitable by itself, which, given the user data harvesting and the ads I definitely doubt, google still is. I'd appreciate any takes on this because it's been bugging me for a while now.
There's no need to look for conspiracies when the truth is simple enough. Current YouTube CEO Neal Mohan was senior vice president of display and video ads at Google. Ads has been his wheelhouse for quite awhile.
Could be but it's such a bad short term solution that I can't help but think there's a little more. Look at the other replies, they have some interesting perspectives on the matter.
Google = biggest advertising company in the world
Youtube = biggest money drain for Google
Adblock = a direct obstacle to the longterm feasibility of Google's ability to ever reconcile the money drain against their primary product (advertising) and end up in the black
The current state of Youtube's profitability is a long way off mattering for anything. For all it costs to run, it can be sustained indefinitely without much issue. This will remain the case until Youtube advertising reaches saturation. Given how much stuff like TV ads still cost, we can safely say this is still a long way off, regardless of the potential rise of competing platforms.
The landscape of youtube & adblockers is unlikely to be the same then, and restrictive measures taken now aren't really representative of what it'll be like. The actions taken now are for 2 reasons: maintenance of consumer expectation, so that it doesn't feel like site monetization is changed substantially when the money faucet gets switched on. And market research.
I have no doubt that a primary intent behind recent actions to do with delays or slowdowns was to measure the blowback, using it a yardstick for further actions not yet taken, which will eventually culminate in some action which actually meaningfully changes Youtube's monetization. But this may not be for many years.
None of us here are really experiencing problems, we have only heard of them and are discussing them. When something new happens, you'll hear "what else is new? they've done [something similar to] this many times before", with those people ignoring that the historic actions were totally mitigated everytime. And in the process, we the vanguard of the internet keeping Google's advertising monopoly restrained by engaging with adblockers, become conditioned to yield to advertising and a Google-controlled internet.
Because that's the only way they can win. Barring serious pro-Google changes to privacy laws around the world, the ultimate means to force advertising simply isn't available to them. Their best hope is to try and convince us that blocking ads is just too much of a hassle, ideally without ever actually making it so in a way that causes some mass migration away from Youtube. That's not a hard line to tread
This is likely to be going on indeed. It's just that the drm failed (for now), so maybe they are trying to get the next best thing? For the short term it surely isn't but a long term goal in case the drm fails to be implemented again could be a reason for these experimental actions. It isn't bad to have a plan b I guess.
Great response, thanks.
You look from a position of a tech-savvy user.
You know how Firefox is built different from Chrome. You know what Manifest V3 is. You know how Ublock Origin is different from other adblockers, etc.
The fact is, we are the minority. Most people would just keep using Chrome or Chromium-based browsers and won't know any better. They'll end up (and already end up) in a trap that's super easy to escape, they just don't plan to/don't know how.
And for us Firefox geniuses they prepare quite a few surprises, like the recently found artificial delay of 5s when your user agent reports you use Firefox on some experimental users. This will drag on, and while we absolutely know what to do to fuck them up, normal users, who are the majority, don't.
You give me too much credit, I mostly learn things by hanging around here lol. It's not difficult to follow some instructions for a few simple things.
This is kind of my point, actually. Why go so far for a minority? As you say, most people won't even try it because it's too big a hassle, or so they think. Those who will, however, actively engage with their systems to maximize positive user experience. As such, to simply move the goal a few more clicks away won't make give up, but instead fuel more of their aggression. This is why this whole story began in the first place. That's why it's a hilariously bad plan that I can't help but question. AdBlockers are now better than before thanks to this whole mess, so watching YouTube get beaten at their own game so effortlessly makes me suspicious.
Or maybe the CEO is stupid lol, that's also a possibility.
That already qualifies you as tech-savvy, lol. Going so deep as to know what Lemmy is is quite an accomplishment in itself. You don't have to be an IT specialist, you should just know the most general details on what computer is and how it works instead of "magic box that runs YouTube" with latter being synonymous to "video".
I reckon when Chrome fully switches to Manifest V3, most users won't bother looking for alternatives - for them it'll just be the end of an adblocking era. Then maaaaybe some of them will learn to switch. But very far from everyone.
Frankly, with the prevalence of adblocks everywhere, even on your grandma's computer, this way YouTube can actually significantly increase the ad revenue.
They probably believed there were easy things they could do that wouldn't result in an "arms race" that would net them a larger profit than the effort they put in. Once you promise x% more revenue they won't let you take that back so they keep pushing.
Very possible
I would argue it's not "against all odds". The add-on devs probably know better how YouTube is working than the bunch of underpaid, outsourced script writers that are tasked to implement the stuff. The latter also have to make sure that it doesn't break for legitimate viewers (oh, sorry, I meant "impressions").
The YouTube team at Google isn't all outsourced and generally Google uses it's top talent for the money making side of the business
The people in the ads side are some of the best around. The problem is: they don't necessarily care about ad blockers.
My laptop came pre installed with Firefox and ublock origin. Google Chrome had ad blocking in it as well. The devs in the company don't like ads any more than anyone else... Also ads are a major security risk, and using ad blocking is just good opsec.
Your perception of Google software engineers is way off. They're more often than not some of the best software engineers in the industry because their hiring bar is very high, and they get paid like it. YouTube is an astounding complex problem to solve with thousands of moving parts and non-trivial problems. It's honestly astounding people are able to build sites that complex, and that they're not only common but extremely reliable.
The issue is there are even more extremely intelligent software engineers outside of Google than in, and many of them spend some of their free time working on FOSS projects including ad-blockers. It's also almost always harder to be red team (attacker, or the ad-blockers devs) as opposed to blue team (defensive, or the people trying to stop them).
Could Google and ad services sue Firefox and extension writers?
I mean, nothing pisses off corporations more than someone coming between them and revenue, and the courts tend to agree.
No, it is your right to choose what code is executed in your browser and which isn’t. There’s a case to be made about accepting the EULA but if you never registered a Google account, then you never accepted any EULA. This is not the case with modded android/iOS apps as in those cases you are violating DMCA 1201.
Got this too couple of times, all I did was F5 and go on with my day. Nothing happened.
I always wondered why YouTube doesn't stream the ad intermixed into the video? Like, it's DASH, right? How does that work, can't the server send a video then switch to another stream source (the ad) and back?
Because YouTube doesn't want you to skip ads? If the ad was just another part of the show, you would just fast forward past the ad.
Well obviously seeking would be disabled during those ads. But maybe that's not preventable.
Then ad blockers could use this information to know which part of the video is the ad and block it again.
😏👏 Excellent
Switching stream sources is the most easy detectable form of ads. Also the most easily blocked, simple dns blocking will suffice.
That's interesting info, thanks!
Serious question: what is the best add blocker right now? I've been using ublock origin, but it doesn't seem to be working that well these days.
uBlock-Origin on Firefox.
Counterpoint... Invidious...
I throw all my links into piped if I'm on desktop, no need to have an additional sponsorblock or RYD extension that way
ublock origin by far. Just refresh the filter list every now and then.
To be absolutely sure no one gets this wrong - uBlock Origin is what you want. Not just uBlock.
To be even absolutelier sure no one gets this wrong - use uBlock Origin on Firefox (or one of it's forked versions) because every other Browser runs chromium under it's hood which heavily restricts ad blocking abilities
Pls consider editing and making it unlock origin. They are different and someone who won't know better will get the wrong one :)
Done. Thanks for lmk
I apologize for my strongopinion but I believe yours is misguided or similar. Ublock origin is objectively the best ad blocker , they are an extremely talented team, dedicated and have been for a long long time.
The enemy is getting stronger, not the defense not working well.
:)
Thanks!
Hell yeah brother
Apparently you need to clear the plugin's cache semi-regularly.
As sometimes it won't update itself as fast.
That makes sense. Thanks for the advice!
Vinegar + SponsorBlock on iOS/iPadOS/MacOS.
thank you for recommending vinegar, it is incredible
Lololol it's been like 2 weeks.
I'm on Linux and use Firefox with ghostery and AdBlock extensions. I've got hit with the "must watch ads to play video" thing on YouTube, but just end up activating a user agent extension and set it to report that I'm "running chrome on windows 10". Voila. I can magically watch YouTube videos without ads again.
as soon as they start doing some sort of client verification it's over for ad blockers
They can't afford to do anything that would lose them a large slice of viewers. Same reason websites still support IE.
It's funny you mention that since YouTube led the web in dropping support for IE 6: https://blog.chriszacharias.com/a-conspiracy-to-kill-ie6
That kind of thing isn't quite in their DNA anymore, but you never know.
they would mostly be losing the ad blocking viewers though, right?
Yes, but the point their are trying to make is to gain the adblocking users, not lose them. They need more people to watch the ads, not less people to watch YT.
i imagine many of them are addicted to youtube and would watch ads
Not sure about that, but it would be interesting to have some real number and not the ones from Google or the adblockers
As it is over for YT, probably.