• Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    322
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      arrow-up
      113
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year 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
          arrow-up
          70
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • ferralcat@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        79
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year 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
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year 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

              • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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.

        • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

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

          • gian @lemmy.grys.it
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year 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.

    • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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