- cross-posted to:
- privacyguides@lemmy.one
- cross-posted to:
- privacyguides@lemmy.one
You must log in or register to comment.
If that is successful, I would expect youtube to switch to simply checking if the ads were actually served to the user. That wouldn’t require checking for adblock on the users computer. Of course the adblocker would just download the content and not display it if they did that.
Either that or merging the ad into the video stream itself. This would make it un-skippable, but would also be unblockable without stream processing (there are commercial skip options for ffmpeg and similar encoders, so not completely impossible, but much more work and more likely to mark real content as a commercial as well).
Thankfully it seems that encoding ads into the video stream is still too expensive for them to implement.
I’m assuming that asking CDNs to combine individualized ads with content and push the unique streams to hosts does not scale well.
It’s not that expensive. You can mix or overlay stuff over a video stream fairly cheaply. Sure, it will be a hit overall for their bottom line but they’ll do it if they have to.
They can also turn on DRM for all videos on the platform. Currently it’s only used for paid videos and it’s very hard to bypass.
or merging the ad into the video stream itself. This would make it un-skippable
That’s not true. Besides the point that people can skip any video content manually anyway, I already use a Firefox addon called “SponsorBlock for YouTube - Skip sponsorships”, which is configurable and works for other sites as well. The skip points are community maintained, but with the help of AI it should be easy to detect ads automatically. The point is, there are already tools to help with skipping video encoded content.
There’s nothing to skip if they overlay small ads while the content is playing.
On the bright side such small ads may be less annoying than full screen ads.
Sponsor block demonstrates one approach to this. If everybody has the ad at the same time stamps, sponsor block would just work out of the box.
If they got creative and introduced different time stamps for the advertisements for different people, then we could do something like MD5 hash of different video payloads, and look for the MD5 hash that isn’t distributed to everybody, mark that as an advertisement
Theoretically they could deny serving byte ranges before the end-of-ad mark until those bytes have been served and a plausible time (the duration of the ad) has passed. Practically this is likely more expensive than what the ad revenue would yield.
Sure, but then you just need a youtube front running cache that preloads videos, or load multiple videos at the same time… i know i’m not the only person who watches youtube at 3x speed, so you could speed up past the ad, etc.
They could use stream encryption (DRM) to ensure you’re viewing the ads as expected and make it hard to capture and playback.
Its a arms race, you could always just record the screen with a camera and edit it out as the ultimate.
you could spin up a vm, and capture the video output
you could use a graphics driver that lets you inspect the frame buffer, etc
you could use the side channel attacks to get the decrypted video frames, heartbleed etc, etc etc
Do these actually work against HDCP? (Outside using a camera, obviously). I know it used to work decently well against most “ordinary” attacks like VMs and capture cards.
Probs a sponsor block like thing could work
deleted by creator
As much as I hate ads and hate the concept that I would be forced to view them, these kind of legal wranglings freak me out. It seems quite possible that a ruling in my favor here would be used against me somewhere else. Courts and lawmakers don’t understand technology and don’t realize the effects laws have. And frankly, the rest of us don’t have much idea, either.
At this point I’m just holding for dear life to piped.video, because illegal front-ends are my only hope to keep watching YouTube.
The first thing that we all need to change is letting rich corporations decide what’s legal and what’s illegal. If using an alternative frontend can be considered illegal, then these corporations are guilty of crimes that would get them guillotined.
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
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.
Saved 75% of original text.
