this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1167 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

59427 readers
2839 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 284 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

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 97 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 62 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly what I said, yeah

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 64 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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 26 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Me reading you:

Fourth gosh darn level of agree

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

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago
[–] Archer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I wish PiHole wasn’t so absolute dogshit about DNS requests from outside the local subnet, might use it then

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Permit all origins, allow all destinations. In the settings.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Tried that, it just reverts back after a few weeks :/

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Open an issue on the forums if it hasn’t already been fixed.

Mine doesn’t revert.

What OS/computer?

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Tried it bare metal on a Pi 4 and as a VM. I have my LAN using the 10.0.0.0/8 space and I couldn’t have DNS breaking all the time

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And it would set itself back?

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yep. Default is to not reply to DNS outside the subnet it's in, and it would randomly flip back to that

[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Open a bug report; that shouldn’t happen.

Also, think about running two DNS servers

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 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."

[–] vitamin@infosec.pub 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, you don't have a right to it. If they want to they can put the entire site being a subscriber paywall. That's their call. But until they do that i will continue to access the site with my adblocked browser.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 8 points 11 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.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They don't have the right to disregard my right to privacy either, yet here we are.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Well.... They do because it's their tos, no?

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 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 54 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 66 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 12 points 11 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@sopuli.xyz 23 points 11 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.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yep, they can send me 500s if they want to, too

[–] TheEntity@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Technically 400s would be more appropriate here. :)

Response codes only matter to good-faith actors

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If the service degrades to far due to using ad blockers then I'll just stop watching anything on YouTube. Easy.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Okay then. That was always allowed.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 6 points 11 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@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 11 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Google can do what they want server-side

Sure, like not sending you videos. 🤔

[–] jtk@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 11 months ago

It's called a "User Agent" for a reason.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] gosling@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Let's just hope they don't start injecting their ads into the video stream itself