this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
424 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38478 readers
47 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
remington
alyaza
TheRtRevKaiser
gyrfalcon
rs5th
coldredlight
SemioticStandard
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
424
YouTube confirms 3-strike policy for blocking ads (www.androidauthority.com)
submitted 2 years ago by StandardIssueCalzone@lemmy.one to c/technology
266 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whelp, here we go again

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themisir 56 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Time to use an adblock blocker blocker extension.

[–] loops 10 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I think that would be NoScript.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NoScript would sadly leave you with NoVideo.

[–] loops 1 points 2 years ago

It doesn't though? :s

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Would YouTube even work with NoScript enabled?

[–] loops 2 points 2 years ago

You just need to allow youtube.com and maybe ytimg.com, but videos work with only youtube.com enabled.

[–] flop@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Does youtube even work with NoScript? I just assumed that google has 50 different scrips running that break the site if they aren't allowed

[–] loops 2 points 2 years ago

Nope, you just need to allow youtube.com and perhaps ytimg.com to load the front page, but I've disabled suggestions and whatnot with youtube enhancer.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yep, it's about to become a never ending fight

Ad blockers vs ad blocker detectors.

At least untill the lobbyist big companies lobby for laws to start suing people for using ad blockers in "violation" of their tos due to a form of "circumvention measure"

At least right now, the code is freely available due to the nature of how HTML, JavaScript and CSS works. - this nature is exactly how a government agency got caught leaking SSNs of teachers, and due to the law, couldn't perform legal action at what they called a "hacking" attempt.

It feels like its only a matter of time before these shitty companies seek to close that law in order to start calling HTML analysis "hacking"

[–] flux 1 points 2 years ago

I don't think publically available blockers can really win this battle in the end. After all, in the end game Google could just

  1. setup a system that runs a browser
  2. downloads the updates as they come
  3. automatically modify the system so that blockers are detected or they fail to block it

This is possibly even relatively easy with the help of LLMs nowdays.

On the other hand, Google backend code is completely secret and for frontend and protocols they can apply opfuscation techniques, requiring manual updates by blocklist maintainers or adblock developers, taking a lot of time continuously. I suppose LLMs could help here as well, but it's harder and such attempts could even be detected by Google, because they would need to be tested against their system.

The only solutions I see are to move on from Youtube, have private blockers that don't become too popular, or tolerate the ads.