Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection
Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection
www.theregister.com
Privacy advocate challenges YouTube's ad blocking detection
49 comments
-
-
So... Peertube anyone?
-
Just started and instance 3 days ago. :)
-
-
-
Its their platform . its their choice. We don't have a choice to force them to allow adblockers. There is always a choice to load content after the ads are served . If they go that route then no adblocker can bypass it.
-
EU bullied sites into showing cookies warnings even on sites outside of EU. In effing Russia of all places too. You'd think, with enough torque, anything can be pushed onto them. Even good things.
-
Except it's been shown that doesn't work by every site ever that tried it and Adblockers still worked.
That funny popup? Yeah doesn't exist for me. I deleted it on my end within my device and there is nothing YouTube can do about it.
-
As the European law stands and is interpreted, yes we can force them to remove their current implemention
-
It's their choice, and I would simply not use YouTube. Access to YouTube specifically is not very concerning to me.
But if they try to normalize this or even attempt to influence legislators that adblockers should be restricted in any way by law, then I would be concerned, and for this reason I think it's important to articulate right now that there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about using an adblocker.
-
-
Hopefully it would also apply to websites which port scan your computer.
-
Why adblockers are essential in a nutshell ⤴️
-
Ironically, that website uses a reader blocker.
-
-
-
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Interview Last week, privacy advocate (and very occasional Reg columnist) Alexander Hanff filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) decrying YouTube's deployment of JavaScript code to detect the use of ad blocking extensions by website visitors.
YouTube's open hostility to ad blockers coincides with the recent trial deployment of a popup notice presented to web users who visit the site with an ad-blocking extension in their browser – messaging tested on a limited audience at least as far back as May.
"In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification over the application of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and whether or not consent would be required for all access to or storage of information on an end user's device which was not strictly necessary," Hanff told The Register.
"Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher).
Hanff disagrees, and maintains that "The Commission and the legislators have been very clear that any access to a user's terminal equipment which is not strictly necessary for the provision of a requested service, requires consent.
"This is also bound by CJEU Case C-673/17 (Planet49) from October 2019 which all Member States are legally obligated to comply with, under the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] – there is no room for deviation on this issue," he elaborated.
The original article contains 1,030 words, the summary contains 258 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
-
good bot
-
-
I filed the same complaint at the Austrian data privacy agency and asked them to coordinate with the Irish one. You should do the same in your European nation.
-
Anyone have family call them after finding out blocking ads on YT is even possible?
I think all this is causing a bit of Streisand effect. Now even more will be blocking ads.
-
Just for your info, There are alternative YouTube clients that allow you to bypass all the ads. Working great on Windows and Android. When you update uBlock Origin, it works on browsers as well.
49 comments
YouTube is going to lose this battle lol.
Both from a legal standpoint and the fact that adblockers WILL adapt
So, they've already won. They just haven't turned on the nuclear option yet.
They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome, it is a way for them to disallow access to YouTube and other services via anything but an approved browser. This would include approved extensions.
So I'll use something that isn't chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube. Making chrome and chrome derivatives via its Internet drm the only option.
A monopoly trying to lock in browsers isn't going to last in the EU.
Anti-trust lawsuit in 3... 2...
This will be legally challenged later, if it is not opt-in.
I don‘t even worry. Some clever dudes will find a way to spoof Chrome with a Firefox extension
People are acting as if losing YouTube and other Google services is the end of the world. It is not. You don't need Google, even if you use Android.
If they want their services to instantly die, sure.
That would be easy to challenge under the same reasoning as what's in the article, not to mention various anti-trust laws and ones covering anti-competitive business practices.
Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stop them, but it's definitely not going to be as easy as them flipping a few switches and saying "watch ads on our browser with no addons or GTFO".
I stopped using Chrome about 3 weeks ago. Used Edge for a while but finding out that is Chromium, I landed back on Firefox after 10 years of not using it. Just moved all my bookmarks and plugins.
Why? Principles the moment people force me to use their software is the moment I leave.
Fast track to getting people to stop using YouTube. No service or company is immune to this.
Even with Google money?
Not even Microsoft in its monolith days was able to spend enough money to stop a legion of angry nerds with a severe case of "fuck you, you can't tell me what to do".