←back to thread

YouTube's new anti-adblock measures

(iter.ca)
990 points smitop | 1 comments | 20 Jun 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
ysavir ◴[20 Jun 25 18:01 UTC] No.44330236[source]▶
I've been getting these buffer loading times recently, and ironically, I don't mind them all that much. The annoyance of ads isn't primarily in the time it takes up, but in having the audio play and a video feed run that isn't the video I clicked on.

If an actual ad played, I'd be irritated beyond belief. But when there's a 12 second buffer, I have enough patience training for slow load times that I instinctively just quickly check my email or spend a brief moment lost in thought. Especially when it's every video. If it was one in every 5 videos, I'd notice it and be bothered. When it's every video, it's part of the experience and my brain just cuts it out automatically.

replies(3): >>44333050 #>>44337196 #>>44340994 #
MathMonkeyMan ◴[20 Jun 25 23:22 UTC] No.44333050[source]▶
Yeah I've been getting the initial delay with the popup "find out why playback is slow." No thanks, I already know, and it's not so bad.
replies(3): >>44333257 #>>44333259 #>>44334777 #
Toritori12 ◴[20 Jun 25 23:57 UTC] No.44333259[source]▶
Out of curiosity I clicked the link and it is funny how they try to blame the extension when is them actually causing the problem.
replies(1): >>44333450 #
HDThoreaun ◴[21 Jun 25 00:33 UTC] No.44333450[source]▶
The extension is stealing from them. I get stealing a zero marginal cost good is minor but the agreement you make with YouTube is that you watch an ad in exchange for the video. Why should they serve you the video if you refuse your part of the agreement?
replies(7): >>44333547 #>>44333595 #>>44333604 #>>44333656 #>>44334023 #>>44334640 #>>44334882 #
BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[21 Jun 25 02:30 UTC] No.44334023[source]▶
I’m happy to make the agreement I need to so I can access the thing I like, then turn around and violate those terms when it benefits me. Why should I feel a sense of personal obligation towards google?
replies(1): >>44334676 #
1. asadotzler ◴[21 Jun 25 05:06 UTC] No.44334676[source]▶
You're not even making an agreement. You're reading a notice, if that. In most cases it's entirely moot legally and only really useful as a policy tool for the provider to hang its "we're blocking you" authority on.

Having said that, I 100% agree. If Google allows for non-logged in users, it's a public website and we can consume it however we like, until Google decides to try to block us. That's what it's doing now, trying to block users from consuming the content however they like, a core feature of the public web. Fortunately, blocking us is very very hard for sites not behind a login. If they want not-logged in use, they either go to war with my tech, favored by platform, or they let it slide.

Now, Google owns Chrome, so they can also go to war in the browser and standards bodies as well. But for now, the web is open and accessible and that means, wiht the right technology (Firefox plus uBlock Origin for me) you can watch all those video ad-free and there's nothing Google can do to stop you.