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.
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.
That’s exactly what I said, yeah
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.”
Me reading you:
Fourth gosh darn level of agree
I’ll never disable my PiHole or turn off ublock tho
Fair.
I wish PiHole wasn’t so absolute dogshit about DNS requests from outside the local subnet, might use it then
Permit all origins, allow all destinations. In the settings.
Tried that, it just reverts back after a few weeks :/
I’m going to try ad guard today… That way I can keep my DHCP
Update: adguard does not block YouTube ads.
You can use PiHole without their DHCP.
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.”
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.
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.
They don’t have the right to disregard my right to privacy either, yet here we are.
Well… They do because it’s their tos, no?
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.
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…
And as a service provider, they can choose to degrade your experience. It goes both ways.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Weird. It’s not happening to me today. Maybe it was something else.
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…
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.
I do have the issue when I’m logged out
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.
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.
this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches
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’).
“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.
Yep, they can send me 500s if they want to, too
Technically 400s would be more appropriate here. :)
Response codes only matter to good-faith actors
If the service degrades to far due to using ad blockers then I’ll just stop watching anything on YouTube. Easy.
Okay then. That was always allowed.
Umm, ok. You were not making them any money before, when you were blocking their ads, why would they care if you left?
Because the big channels will get a significant drop in views which lowers their sponsor pay and willingness to work with them.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Google can do what they want server-side
Sure, like not sending you videos. 🤔
Client side DRM is coming.
They’re mostly there on Android already.
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
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.)
Couldn’t they fork Brave and have both a current and a ManifestV3 version?
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.
That’s ok. Us nerds have been defeating DRM in its many forms for decades. This will be no different.
Not really true for video games. Plenty of popular games still with uncracked denuvo…
It’s called a “User Agent” for a reason.
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
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.
deleted by creator
Let’s just hope they don’t start injecting their ads into the video stream itself
Remember when every billionaire apologist was telling us how no one would do shit like this when net neutrality was being gutted?
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Google is not an ISP. With or without net neutrality, Google could fuck with YouTube users.
Technically false. Google is an ISP. But they aren’t using their position as an ISP to slow down traffic or fast track other traffic in this instance so no it has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Only if we narrow our scope to the commonly thought of types of net neutrality. I think if we had foreseen intentionally treating browsers differently, this type of thing would have 100% been rolled into that original conversation about net neutrality. It’s the same idea: artificially modifying a web experience for capitalist gain.
I personally wish it could be illegal for them to do this, but I do think it would be really hard to enforce such a law.
Illegal to do…what? Not offer high-res videos? To have any delay before streaming videos? To refuse to serve you videos, even if doing so caused them to lose money? How would you enforce that on Google, much less on smaller startups? Would it apply to PeerTube instances?
Google sucks for doing this. It’ll drive people to competitors–hopefully even federated competitors. But laws to ‘fix’ the problem would be nearly impossible to craft–and would be counterproductive in the long term, because they’d cement the status quo. Let Google suck, so that people switch away from it.
Discriminate against browsers.
And I did write that it would be too hard to enforce. I’m a software developer so I understand that it’s more complicated than it sounds.
I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying, but they aren’t really discriminating against browsers at all. As far as I understand it, they pretty much have an
if (!adPageElement.isLoaded) { showStupidPopup(); }in there somewhere. It doesn’t rely on any nefarious browser implementation-specific extensions; everyone gets that same code and runs it. As for the 5 seconds thing, IIRC some FF configurations were triggering false positives, but I think it was patched. It does seem awfully convenient, and maybe they only patched it because they got caught, but they also must have been morons to think something that obvious wouldn’t be noticed immediately.
I think they claimed they’re not discriminating against browsers, they’re just better at identifying adblockers on Firefox or something.
Google is literally an ISP. They provide my internet service.
Well, fair. But even in that case, they have every right to degrade your YouTube experience, as owners of YouTube. As ISP (I mean, assuming NN was still a thing) they couldn’t selectively degrade traffic, but YouTube has no obligation to you under net neutrality.
Thank you
Not just YouTube. Now I have to say I’m not a robot when searching from my phone because I dare use a VPN that’s not theirs.
This is because scammers and criminals often use VPNs. They actually should be doing that.
Do you know the old saying:
if privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.Just because people might do stuff with things that isn’t intended or even illegal doesn’t mean you should be banning said things.
Otherwise we’d be in a world where we have no kitchen knives, axes, wrenches, food, money, cars, planes, ships, bikes, hands, feet - you know what I mean?And guns.
There are many legitimate uses of VPN such as protecting your privacy from private interests and bypassing censorship. That’s collective punishment.
What’s scammy or criminal about doing a Google search?
It’s probably part of their DDOS protection.
You know what else spammers and criminals often do? Breathe. We need to make that more difficult.
Straight to slippery slope fallacy. Cute.
I still remember Ajit Pai’s dumbass teeth as he smugly insisted that you’ll still be able to “‘gram’ your food” before covering a Chipotle bowl in a mountain of flaming hot Cheetos and an ocean of Sriracha. And that was one of the least irritating moments of that video. That whole fucking video was basically “you can still waste time with your bread, circuses, and creature comforts, you fucking peasants, now shut up and let the corporations do their thing” while ignoring every legitimate criticism of the decision to gut NN.
DAE nET nEUtrAliTY?!?!
This is a good time to make aware about an amazing privacy-centric & user-friendly alternative - Peertube. It is not a big network as of now but the benefits it provides over YouTube are large - it is a part of the fediverse. Of course, only through increasing participation will the network become bigger.
If you still wish to use YouTube, you can try third party front ends like Invidious or Piped on the browser; NewPipe(Also is a front end for Soundcloud, media.ccc.de, Peertube & Bandcamp) or LibreTube on Android.
If you only browse YT Music, you can try HyperPipe in the browser. There are many apps for it available on F-Droid, an alternative app store for Android. My personal pick is ViMusic.
Peertube is a great platform. And it has its uses. But it will never compete with YouTube - YouTube’s business model actively incentivises and pays people to post media to their platform.
Peertube is more likely to be to be the opposite - donation run, and given videos are exponentially more expensive to host, it’s highly unlikely that creators will receive any compensation for their work. In fact it’s more likely theyl be in the list of people donating to the platform (or they’ll own the platform outright)
While this might be fine if a creator makes the majority of its money elsewhere, via patreon or sponsors or whatever, it’s not going to work out for any aspiring or up and coming YouTube who has yet to become big enough to start diversifying their income base.
I feel like people mistake YouTube for a video hosting solution.
But that’s not the point.
- YouTube a huge archive of content that accumulated over the past 17 years.
- YouTube is a content suggestion machine. Discoverability is a key aspect.
- YouTube sets an incentive by allowing people to monetize their content.
- …
So, if the only thing you’re looking for is a video hosting solution, then, yes, PeerTube might be an alternative. In the same way uploading videos to your own webspace would be, and Vimeo also still exists.
But for all the other stuff, YT is, unfortunately, unmatched, and probably will be for a while …
You’re right. It also got people and ai flagging illegal content. That takes much more money then even hosting videos does. Though if the .world owners want to make a peertube insurance, I’m all for subscripting.
Once again, I want to agree that it’s a massive undertaking that’s more than software and bandwidth.
Cool thing about LibreTube is that it uses Piped and you can make an account on a Piped instance, log in with that in LibreTube and your subscriptions and playlist will be synced
I’m thinking of just skipping ahead a bunch of steps and start the global resistance movement so it’s up and warm and running for when the rest of you guys start popping in after the GlobuCorpedorate attacks
Well that’s only fair.
It already made it worse for non-adblock users.
You had me in the first half. Ngl
I’m 3 hours late to make this same joke
Sadly it’s not a joke.
However bad they may make it, it can’t possibly be worse than it is for non-adblock users.
But hey, if they want to torpedo their own services, have at it. It’s not like they have a reputation for it or anything…
i am more worried about the old videos wipe thats coming soon
Sooo many peoples uploaded memories and documentaries are going to becone lost forever
Wait, what?
I wonder why they would kill old videos instead of just removing those 10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches. You’d think those giant loop videos would be taking up far more space.
You’d think those giant loop videos would be taking up far more space
Someone above posted an article saying they aren’t actually. But you’d be surprised at how little space those 10 hour videos can actually take. They’re highly compressible since they’re just the same still image and the same audio on repeat. A good compression algorithm (which Google certainly is using) would basically compress it into one instance of the song and how many times to repeat it (more complex than that, but that’s the idea)
Sometimes they are, if it’s just audio and a static image. Some of them definitely are not that though. The ones with visualizers or full music videos or the like are not nearly as compressible.
10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches.
I tend to fall asleep to one of those videos of being on the beach with ocean sounds, so /shrug.
Not the same as 10hr nyan cat or bacon pancakes
10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches.
I tend to fall asleep to one of those videos of being on the beach with ocean sounds, so /shrug.
Not the same as 10hr nyan cat or bacon pancakes
Definately not the same. Also, what “nobody watches” is in the eye of the beholder.
So to combat use cases like this, why not just add a repeat option? There would be no break if it cached the beginning again.
Also just download the audio you want and loop it yourself. It would take roughly 2 minutes and use way less bandwidth.
So to combat use cases like this, why not just add a repeat option? There would be no break if it cached the beginning again.
The first two minutes are an ad, and having a loud voice talking to you all of a sudden in your bedroom while you are asleep tends to wake you up.
Also just download the audio you want and loop it yourself. It would take roughly 2 minutes and use way less bandwidth.
With compression techniques being as they are today, I truly don’t even worry about the bandwidth.
But manually looping any part of it inside the video which you can do past the first 2 minutes would still not be an ad. Also, who doesn’t use an ad blocker on YouTube? All of those problems that you listed have incredibly easy solutions that you can execute with zero training.
And realistically if they are looking for profit (and they absolutely are) I still see no reason why they would keep these up. The benefits are absolutely minimal at best and the drawbacks are quite large.
But manually looping any part of it inside the video which you can do past the first 2 minutes would still not be an ad. Also, who doesn’t use an ad blocker on YouTube?
My YouTube app on my phone, which doesn’t have an ad blocker. And as far as I know, there’s no way to restart a video at a certain timestamp, it just restarts from the very beginning. I’d be glad to hear otherwise though?
They aren’t wiping videos.
From a literal 5 second Google search: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/is-youtube-deleting-old-videos-1234737099/
Wait what?
Who’s going to wipe the old videos?
Google’s going to delete inactive google accounts. So if you see a channel whose last upload was six years ago, there’s a good chance it’s about to be deleted
Thanks. I looked it up and read that Google decided according to the latest news they’re not deleting YouTube accounts with video uploads. We’ll see.
Oh I suppose my diseased father’s small channel with a few of his live music performances will be deleted. Lovely.
By the look of it they won’t be but I would make an offline copy just to be safe. Maybe re-upload it on a newer account/website.
Grab those vids.
deleted by creator
It’s just my go to for a “this is a thing” comments.
Has an explanation and links to the site.
Save it bro to your cloud
Goddamnit, I didn’t even think about this when I saw they were doing the mass delete. Here’s to hoping that they’ll at least keep the videos up. Waaaay too much stuff on YT to lose it all. Anyone know if archive.org is backing them up?
Anyone know if archive.org is backing them up?
At this point you got to imagine that archives hardware infrastructure has to be as big or bigger than Google’s.
Man this stuff should not be left to the hands of random corporations.
I was just speaking towards server hardware and infrastructure, and their costs, and not making a value judgement on corps vs. not-corps.
About a week ago YouTube rolled out a new interface for ads. I cannot skip 90% of ads now. Many are around a minute in length. Always 2 ads at the beginning of every video, even if it’s only 10 seconds in length. Always 2 ads at the end of every video.
I’m not getting that many ads. Could I see the new interface?
I don’t know why they think this change is going to get anyone to switch.
5 seconds of nothing is still way better than a minute-long ad
They want to sell their Premium subscription. They want you to compare 5 seconds of nothing versus “0” seconds of nothing. That being said, I think uBlock Origin with up-to-date filter lists completely eliminated this delay for me.
At work, we can’t log into personal accounts. And my job isn’t going to buy YouTube premium. So now any video tutorials on YouTube is getting impossible to watch.
This has now triggered a bunch of lazy developers into action in my entire company. Even our internal newsletters are explaining how to use adblock.
I haven’t seen any issues or ads on Youtube across all devices, except my LG tv. I don’t doubt they’re being scummy but the workarounds are working.
I use https://github.com/webosbrew/youtube-webos on my LG TV, to watch without ads. I have to sideload it via the CLI tools, but it works. Sometimes I have to reinstall it (I suppose some TV update screws up), but for my partner watching without ads is worth the random sporadic breakage.
I am so worried about breaking it, how would you rate it in terms of ease?
The procedure to install is very easy, you can also always uninstall it and reinstall the official one, I don’t think it’s irreversible in any way. Note that I am talking about side loading using developer mode. Rooting the TV via an exploit can brick your TV instead.
Edit: The procedure is basically described in https://webostv.developer.lge.com/develop/getting-started/developer-mode-app.
I realize I said very simple, but I guess it depends on your familiarity with tech and command line tools.
I have no problem trying it, I just didn’t want to brick it is all. I am tech literate but it wouldn’t be in my hobbies so I don’t have much in the way of skillset. Anything I’ve done has been with step by step and tools 😂
Oh no, I get it, I was quite scared the first time I messed with it, and I cursed LG plenty for not letting me install safely what I want on my own TV. I found this technique to be quite safe though. You basically uninstall the official YouTube app, then do the loading and you can always remove the app and reinstall the official one.
I hope I didn’t sound condescending, I just realized that I had been a bit too quick labeling something easy, while I understand that for some other person reading, using a CLI tool is in itself a new thing. Good luck :)
uBlock Origin
I still worry that google is going to declare ad blockers against their TOS and shut down my gdrive and 20 year old gmail. I’m trying to move away from alphabet shit but it’s not so easy with such a long history. To that end I haven’t even once used yt except not logged in on a FF private window with ublock since they started pulling this shit.
I recently created another google account for youtube just in case. Was a huge pain to transfer over all my subscriptions but worth it for not having to worry.
Changing mail providers isn’t easy when you use their domain endings as you’ll probably have to update a bunch of accounts to use a new mail address. For the future, use email providers that allow to use your own domain(s), switching providers is a lot easier then. You can export mails from Gmail with ease though, as long as they provide IMAP you can simply sync your complete mailbox and you could even upload all of it to your new email provider.
And Google Drive…simply transfer all your files to somewhere else and done.
are people that impatient
Most people? Absolutely.
people ._.
They can try selling me their Premium subscription again when they start suggesting more than one or two videos (if that) on their homepage that actually interest me.
Not that I’ll ever pay for it, anyway. But get me something that I’ll actually click on to get served ads before trying to sell me something to get rid of them.
5 seconds of nothing
It’s an eternity of nothing for me now so yeah I switched. To invidious.
deleted
still not as bad as Chrome
deleted
even in the event that it does get worse I can just downgrade or even fork it myself
one of the many benefits of open-source software
deleted
Chromium is to Chrome what Darwin is to macOS.
deleted
Fuck Google and YouTube, but the title is misleading, and it’s an article from three weeks ago. I’m quite surprised that this post is so upvoted, and nobody else flagged this before.
I just read the article and I don’t see how it’s misleading. Google introduced a delay before video starts for adblock users
But the register wasn’t able to reproduce it, and goes on to suggest it might be testing the capability with a random subset of users.
deleted by creator
Genuine question (because I’m looking too): without YouTube, where would you go to watch all the diverse videos they host? It’s a really difficult business model. Look at how expensive Floatplane is to the user. Luke and Linus have talked about how difficult it is to run on WAN Show, too: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1mZrsunukUA
A fediverse platform would almost definitely be a worse experience in terms of speed and video quality because residential internet (at least in the majority of the US) just doesn’t have the upload to support multiple HD video streams. Therefore, it’s not really possible to host at home; a basic server at Hetzner could probably do a dozen or two direct streams with no conversion, but storage is kind of expensive just because there’s so much content, and then there’s the need for moderation, high uptime, security, “good” UX design…
Then of course on top of all that when you don’t have creators getting paid by ad revenue, fewer will be able to spend the time on production quality because they’ll be doing it after work, so the length and/or quality suffers.
I dunno dude, I really hope someone smarter than me has figured this out, but it’s a tough problem.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=1mZrsunukUA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot ❤️
You are correct. Fundamentally, it’s the hosting and storage issue that’s the crux of all this.
And the only choices available are another corporation hosting and paying/passing on the cost, or all of us hosting on a peer-to-peer network, which will be slow, but doable.
Having said that, the peer hosting method would work though, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. We just shouldn’t expect the same level of service we do from YouTube or any corporation hosting videos.
I mean torrenting works but i’ll be damned if I’d need to wait for the buffer to fill up every 30sec for the 1440p video.
You’d need multiple versions pre-encoded to reduce network transfer and serverside transcoding.I mean torrenting works but i’ll be damned if I’d need to wait for the buffer to fill up every 30sec for the 1440p video. You’d need multiple versions pre-encoded to reduce network transfer and serverside transcoding.
It would definately be a slog to watch, vs a service that can just deliver the video to you in real time on demand.
My only point is that you would be able to watch the video, after the slog, so that avenue should not be discounted as an option. Its not a great option, but still, an option.
Peertube is already just as good in terms of performance, it does need more content and better discoverability for sure
Does that performance scale once the user base matches even a fraction of YouTube? Probably not.
It uses P2P so I don’t see why not
Peertube is already just as good in terms of performance
I don’t think you can judge performance in an ‘apple versus oranges’ (pop usage) scenario though.
They are using known tech, they did not reinvent the wheel
They are using known tech, they did not reinvent the wheel
That’s not my point though. My point is how much capacity versus how many people are using the service.
You’re trying to equate the same level of capacity when there’s different levels of usage.
Finally, how you implement the tech is as important as the tech itself, as it can be done either well, or poorly.
Interesting, it came up in news feeds on other sites. I’ll check more in the future, that’s the first time I’ve had that happen.
I wonder if there are bot farms for Lemmy/Fediverse… There must be
Why would someone do it?
Someone who wants to push an agenda by trying to make a certain stance look popular. Downvote those who have an opposing opinion to try to hide the submission from people’s eyeballs.
Some people might believe a Lemmy account is worth something if they add value to it, just like what people believe with Reddit accounts.
FAKECIENT OLDS!
By doing that you’re wasting bandwidth on all the CDNs that hosts ALL your filter lists. Updating the Quick fixes list should be enough. (Which updates every 5 hours automatically on uBO 1.54).
How to manually update Quick Fixes (Manual updates push back automatic updates.)
- Click 🛡️ uBO’s icon
- the ⚙ Dashboard button
- the Filter lists pane
- the 🕘 clock icon next to the uBlock filters – Quick fixes list
- the 🔃 Update now button.
mate, that won’t even scratch a single server’s bandwidth, much less that of a CDN.
@Frellwit@lemmy.world is right, the following FAQ is from the uBO’s YouTube Mega Thread on reddit.
How often should I manually update filter lists? Can I somehow automate this?
YouTube filters are in a list named
uBlock filters - Quick fixes. The list updates every 12 hours. It’s the only list you might need to update - only if this page says it’s fixed, but you’re getting the message.If you’re not getting detected. Don’t update. Current estimated cost for just ONE of uBO’s CDNs: HERE. This is with other lists updating every few days. uBO’s not a company, it’s a volunteer project using free services, which have limits that we cannot cross.
completely different scenario from a manual purge though
Are they, though? I’ve been using Firefox and uBlock Origin for years and I’ve not had an issue other than needing to manually update my filters three times since this started.
Yeah, however “worse” it is for adblock users, it can’t compare to how awful the ads are.
Exactly. I’ve spent 15 seconds of my life overcoming this three times. Click, click, click.
You’d be surprised how sensitive normies are regarding 3 additional clicks.
For us tech literate folks it’s a regular sunday but they are literally raging internally if they need another 5 clicks more than usual.Lol quite true
The proven reason why you can’t beat crowd sourcing in the millions.
And freetube is making it so much better.
Something I didn’t even realize I wanted was to not have some eyeball-pulling algorithm recommending things to me. It’s lovely.
Yep. Personally use Piped, but it’s the same idea. It basically saves me hours of watching useless videos everyday.
Now if only Piped wouldn’t error out and be unusable for 10 minutes at a time every couple hours…
It doesn’t for me, though.
I have been trying to figure out why since I started using it… searches spin forever, videos spin forever, some videos just spit “Error 1003” immediately, and then they become accessible 10 minutes later. I even tried filing an issue to no avail. I may end up looking for other alternatives.
Have you tried changing the instances? Some instances simply perform better than others.
I have, but the ones I tried weren’t much better. I looked again and there’s a few new ones, so I’ll try those and update if they work faster/more consistently.
That’s why I’ve been using YouTube without logging in and if using in browser, I have the cookies autodelete after I close the page to start new each time.
It never really recommended me what I wanted anyway. I guess the algorithm doesn’t work on me.
What freetube?
Google it and join us in video paradise
What about sponsor block?
Freetube has Sponsorblock built-in.
Most of the channels I watch with inline sponsor roll from the creator, they do a good job, and I am entertained by it.
You have the option to disable sponsorblock in freetube.
Obtrusive ads are frustrating.
Perfectly integrated, entertaining, on-brand ads from creators I appreciate? No problem.
I don’t care. I was giving you the opportunity to inform others about something you think is cool. You blew it.
Weren’t adblocker-blockers judged going against gdpr?
Yes
Could you provide more info? On what grounds?
IIRC it was one lower court case in Germany… That’s so many asterisk attached as to be meaningless, even if that judgement isn’t struck down or amended (unlikely), that still only applies to Germany (or was it one state within Germany?).
The way the EU works is that it mandates each sovereign country to implement the mandate into their national laws, so jurisprudence in Germany doesn’t mean anything at all anywhere else.
Also, courts in Europe can’t make laws like in the US. Their rulings aren’t considered to be law.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that…
Civil Law (used almost everywhere in the world outside the Commonwealth) still has Case Law, but it is held subordinate to legislation (itself usually built on top of Roman and Napoleonic law), whereas historically common law is built out of nothing but case law (because English kings had better things to do than concern themselves with the squabbles of peasants).
Still, when presented with a novel case that isn’t specifically legislated for, judges in Civil Law countries can still make a ruling, and subsequent trials will have to take that ruling into acount.
How is that relevant? Just because some foreign entity has different laws doesn’t mean you cannot have yours. We shouldn’t always repeat us policy as gospel. Just look at their social policy nightmare.
To discern if an add blocker is in use you are processing information not essential to your service.
You could, eg. Not start the stream until the add is over if it wasn’t blocked without violating this. In the end whether or not the user uses an add blocker is not relevant to your ability to stream a video.
Basically the stuff they need to detect whether ads are actually shown needs information of the device state that are generally not available according to Article 5(3) ePR.
The e-privacy directive is not a thing yet.
It was some low effort attempt talking about “code that I do not like running on my PC” or something like that, words like “malware” were thrown around. Basically if detecting adblocks is illegal so should be any JavaScript code.
I mean they’ve also consistently been making YouTube worse for everyone not using Adblock, so it’s only fair.
Great, I’ll use it less if that’s the case 🤷
That’s not a bad outcome for them
If everybody with adblockers quit youtube and used alternative platforms, I agree, that would be great.
Saves them money because they aren’t delivering content for free
And the remaining population won’t raise the issue when they add more
I moved over to new pipe. No more algorithm on regular basis. I have the 20 or so people that I want to see. If one of my existing 20 people recommend somebody else, I’ll go check them out.
Between getting rid of reddit algorithm and YouTube’s algorithm I’m clawing back huge swaths of time.
We’ll still figure out ways to get around ads. So suck it Google.
By the looks of these default recommended videos, Youtube is great for bigots and authright traitors.
Right? I’ll be scrolling through my feed and bam random Jordan Peterson video and then some black guy pointing up at a video of Trump. I don’t want to see that crap ever, but Google gets paid by these guys so they just insert that crap wherever.
