• @Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    317
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Whatever happens on my browser is client side, which is hardware and software I own. I can make what I own do what I want. It’s a right.

    It’s like Google saying that I can’t skim a magazine in my home, and that I must read the ads. Google can do what they want server-side, and I’ll do what I want client-side.

    • @FMT99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10211 months ago

      They’re not saying you can’t have an adblocker. They’re saying their software will try not to serve you their data if you do, or at least make it inconvenient.

      You have a right to your computer. You do not have a right to their service.

        • @SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7011 months ago

          Me after reading the 1st comment: “OK. True. Fair.” Me after reading the 2nd comment: “OK. True. Fair.” Me after reading the 3rd comment: “OK. Also true. Also fair.”

          • @Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3311 months ago

            Me reading you:

            Fourth gosh darn level of agree

            I’ll never disable my PiHole or turn off ublock tho

          • @Klear@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1611 months ago

            There was a rabbi arbitrating a dispute between neighbours. One of them complained that the other one gathers apples that fall off his apple tree and into the other neighbour’s garden. “Those are my apples grown on my tree. He’s stealing them!”

            “You’re right,” says the rabbi. But the other neighbour counters.

            “But the branches of the tree are above my property. If he doesn’t want them to fall on my garden, he can cut off the branch. But he lets them fall into my garden making them my apples.”

            “You’re right,” says the rabbi and adjourns the diapute to be able to think about it. He’s at his wit’s end and tells the whole story to his wife when he gets home.

            “That doesn’t make sense. They can’t both be right.”

            “You’re right.”

        • @Synthead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months ago

          You do have a right to your computer. After content is delivered to you, you have downloaded data, and your own hardware and software acts to consume said downloaded data. After it is downloaded, even if it is in a browser in a cache, it is considered offline content. This also applies to streaming media chunks, too: once it’s downloaded, you have acquired it locally.

      • @ferralcat@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        But their software is just blocking based on browser. Their message to you is not “don’t use an ad blocker”. It’s “use chrome and you won’t have this problem”. Theyre literally just hoping to abuse their position as a monopoly in video to try and strengthen their monopoly on browsers.

        • Perhyte
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Is that why I haven’t had any problems? I thought it was either Google A/B testing again or my ad blocker updating often enough to keep up, but I do have a user-agent changer installed in Firefox that’s configured to tell YouTube I’m on Chrome…

    • @Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5711 months ago

      And as a service provider, they can choose to degrade your experience. It goes both ways.

      • @Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7411 months ago

        Except they want to send you videos. The power is with you, the viewer. Without you, advertisers will have no reason for buying ads. Google can’t collect your data either. Realise that you have this power. Youtube is not like electricity or clean water. We can live without it if push comes to the shove.

        • @ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2911 months ago

          To be fair, what they want is to make money off of you, be it through metadata or through advertising. It’s just that sending you videos happens to be the model which they use to get the metadata or advertising income.

          • @gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1511 months ago

            If they wanted to make money off of me then they should have kept the Pixel Pass as a thing so I’d have a reason to have YT premium

            Or make YT premium worth it

            But nah, they’d rather ruin the product I was paying for, so now they get nothing. At least then I’m not paying for it to get worse

        • JohnEdwa
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2611 months ago

          They don’t want to send us videos, they want to serve us ads and annoy us into buying Youtube Premium, which someone using adblocker won’t see, or need. From their point of view they would win either way - if they successfully block adblockers it either converts us into ad watchers, premium subscribers, or we fuck off and stop using their bandwidth.

          • no banana
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1211 months ago

            It’s funny because I pay for premium and have noticed a worse experience since this was revealed. They don’t seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

            • lastweakness
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              They don’t seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

              They definitely seem to have checks in place for it. I have Family Premium and so far no issues at all.

              Edit: to clarify, not a fan of any of this. Just saying it does work for me

              • no banana
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                Weird. It’s not happening to me today. Maybe it was something else.

              • @Malfeasant@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 months ago

                Well, I don’t pay for premium, and I use an adblocker, and I haven’t had any problems. Not having a problem doesn’t prove anything if they’re only targeting a subset of their users…

              • @voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                011 months ago

                The article says that this isn’t happening for all users, which indicates that they’re still experimenting with it and haven’t fully rolled it out yet.

        • BraveSirZaphod
          link
          fedilink
          611 months ago

          You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

          • Cosmic Cleric
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

            When you take your comment to its logical end though your comment makes no sense, as hence there’s now no one to watch the videos and earn money from them doing so.

            You can’t force someone to consume your content, and if you earn money by people consuming your content, then the power is ultimately with them.

            Plus, all this discussion, we’re assuming that serving ads is the only way that Google can make money off you when watching the videos, which is not true. They can do the same kind of things they do with Gmail and make money from that.

            • @cole@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              311 months ago

              this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

              • Cosmic Cleric
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -211 months ago

                this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

                That’s why I said logical conclusion.

                My bet would be the vast majority of people (what you call leeches) would eventually use ad blockers, as people in general usually do not like to watch commercials. (Again, speaking in endgame scenarios, AKA ‘logical conclusion’).

                • BraveSirZaphod
                  link
                  fedilink
                  211 months ago

                  “Logical conclusion” does not mean that you suddenly add in an unjustified premise of “all people will endure some amount of hassle to use an ad blocker”.

                  I think the best analogy is Netflix’s password sharing, which not only didn’t hurt them, but actually brought them a lot of subscribers.

                  • Cosmic Cleric
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -111 months ago

                    “Logical conclusion” does not mean that you suddenly add in an unjustified premise of “all people will endure some amount of hassle to use an ad blocker”.

                    You’ll have to elaborate. In my eyes, justified or not is a non-sequiteur. The premise is people will want to avoid the commercials, and as Google gets more draconian with commercials more people will attempt to avoid them, either by using adblockers, or by paying the sub fees.

                    I think the best analogy is Netflix’s password sharing, which not only didn’t hurt them, but actually brought them a lot of subscribers.

                    People take the most direct path to avoiding aggravation (as the Netflix case shows, as its easier to just pay the unjustified extra cost than having to cancel their sub and finding another streaming service).

                    Having to constantly watch a bunch of commercials is way more aggravating that clicking a few buttons once to add an addon to your browser that removes the bigger constant aggravation of commercials.

        • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1911 months ago

          Umm, ok. You were not making them any money before, when you were blocking their ads, why would they care if you left?

          • @CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            511 months ago

            Because the big channels will get a significant drop in views which lowers their sponsor pay and willingness to work with them.

            • BraveSirZaphod
              link
              fedilink
              611 months ago

              I think you’re overestimating how many people care enough about this.

              Remember when killing password sharing was gonna be the death of Netflix, and then they saw a significant increase in subscriptions and profits?

          • gian
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months ago

            A possible answer is because the creators that have their own sponsors in their videos want the view even if you don’t see the Google ads, so Google on one hand want you to watch their ads while on the other hand cannot afford to really lose you since that would reflects on the creators and then if a creator leave for another platform (a big if, I agree) Google lose all the traffic generated by said creator, both who use an adblocker and who don’t use an adblocker.

      • BaroqueInMind
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You forgot to mention it’s also coming to all Chromium based browsers (i.e. Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc) as well in the form of ManifestV3

        • @Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          Manifest V3 doesn’t really have the real client side DRM. It just has the ad-blocker breaking API changes. The real DRM will be whatever comes of the abandoned Web Environment Integrity API. (It’s not really abandoned just shifted over to only Android WebView.)

          • Engywuck
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Usually Brave already strips away invasive/unfavolrable stuff from Google before releasing. OTOH, browsers with inbuilt adblockers won’t be affected by MV3, as the latter only applyes to extensions. Inbuilt adblockers are part of the browser itself and aren’t constrained by whatever rule Google may want to put in place.

        • lastweakness
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          Not really true for video games. Plenty of popular games still with uncracked denuvo…

    • @1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You can, but as a part of doing what they want serverside they can ask for some kind of proof you don’t have an adblocker on the server-side, you can reverse engineer that and spoof the checks and it becomes an arms race just like we have now… You’re effectively just saying the status quo is a-ok with you

      • @Synthead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I don’t personally enjoy the status quo, but they’re not obligated to serve me any videos if they don’t want to. However, if they have given me media to consume on my devices, it’s up to me to decide how I consume the media that was already delivered.