They are rolling this out in stages to users worldwide, It happened to me 3 weeks ago, on Brave, Firefox, and on Chrome. I had to junk Brave, update firefox, flush out my extensions (remove them) and reinstall, and now I run 6 different ad blocking and tracking extensions and its back working again. You should also know that Adblocker Ultimate are also involved and working on blocking their extension from working so they can sell premium app, which is now an app that runs on your computer, not an extension anymore.
It will be a cat and mouse game, which YouTube will loose in the long run. Don’t remember the name, but there is a very clever solution: They download all the ads so YT thinks you are watching. However, ads are never shown to you. This is extremely hard to detect and it muddies the data collection of Google since you watch and click everything.
IMO: This is a net loss for YT/Google. Their collection of data looses value. And advertisers wont be willing to pay the same amount for clicks, since a registered click is not necessary someone who watched and the targetting got worse…
Worst case of this solution is you might have to wait before watching your video. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for google to refuse to send you the video until $ad_duration has elapsed.
Still beats watching ads though. I could queue up a bunch in a “watch later” playlist and have a program get them all ready for me.
AdNauseam is a browser extension that uses the same idea to obfuscate tracking. I never used it myself, but it seems like a good alternative to blocking ads.
6 adblockers?! Have you looked into uBlock origins customisable block lists? You can combine at least 3 blockers with that. Additionally you could add custom block lists.
filterlists.com - list of auto-updating filters, makes it very easy to add one. Make sure to use one with a good rating.
Yeah, do it. uBlock is great in terms of performance so you will feel how much faster browsing is after uninstalling the other add-ons. You can also block known scams or websites known by pirates to be unsafe. It can also block cookie popups (but I don’t care about cookies might be better at this).
I also suggest Redirector, which lets you can set up custom redirects such as
<span style="color:#323232;">Pattern name: YT Shorts in normal player
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Example URL: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ExmplVid-ID → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExmplVid-ID
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Match pattern: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/*
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Redirect to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=$1
</span>
It is very powerful and can also replace multiple extensions. For example, it can percent-decode URLs, which enables me to prefix a URL with ar[space] in the address bar and redirect me to the archived version of that site. Just add https://web.aarchive.org/web/*/%s as a bookmark with keyword ar. (This trick is useful for making custom “search engines”, which would often require yet another extension.) However, this trick is not enough alone because it goes to https://web.aarchive.org/web/*/example.com%2Fpage and Archive.org needs a decoded URL. So notice that I used the nonsense address web.aarchive.org which Redirector will detect and correct using this rule:
Problem with that is, idcac accepts the cookies, ublock blocks the banner and thus you havent given consent and no cookies should be placed. Note that some websites might collect data regardless but there’s nothing much to do about it. ¯_ (ツ) _/¯
They did a pretty damn good job stamping out MLB streaming since last year. There's still sources out there but nowhere near as numerous or consistent as they were in like 2019 - early 2022
Once again for those who didn’t know or forgot: just like with every other industry making the same complaint, when they say that it “costs billions”, that’s true in the exact same way as losing a random lottery ticket would cost me millions: completely hypothetically.
In their calculations, every person who watches an illegal stream would, had the stream not been available, pay their ridiculously high prices to watch legally rather than not watch at all.
In reality, the opposite is many times more common and it’s frankly journalistic malpractice that mainstream media always just regurgitate that claim as if it was indisputably true.
Like with copaganda, they’re covering for predatory practices, in this case charging much more than your target customers can afford and then using draconian measures against those providing an alternative solution that wouldn’t have been necessary if the product had been reasonably priced.
I always call it Magic Math. There’s so much of it when you start learning about investing/trading. “Buying calls has infinite potential for gains. Selling calls has infinite potential for losses.” Like, yeah, that’s mathematically true. But at the end of the day it’s not practically true, you’re just putting a lot of weight on what you could be getting instead of what you are getting.
They claim that everyone would have otherwise paid for a subscription to watch it legaly. But that is simply not true.
When you could buy either variation of pasta in the store, where there is hundreds of boxes stapled, so price and availability are certain, you can speak of opportunity costs.
But here the elasticity is extreme. Many people will not buy this if it costs anything at all. Most probably would, if there is one service with reasonable prices where they can watch everyting. Some people are probably not able to watch a legal stream at all, because it isnt licenced to their country.
Is google that stupid that this will not bring on an onslaught of abuse to circumvent their false god status of the internet? I have already been “part 3’d” and completely bypassed it.
They get jackshit from me now at all. At least before they may have made some revenue from me for viewing the videos, now I am a ghost. No money for anyone. (and in case you are gonna say - I dont care content makers are losing, they are all dumbarses, and if they are supporting yt still and not posting elsewhere, then they are just stupid cunts. The only reason google is doing this is to make more money off of the people who make content, but not upset their already unstable revenue income. If the content providers get antsy and leave, YT loses.
I dont care content makers are losing, they are all dumbarses, and if they are supporting yt still and not posting elsewhere, then they are just stupid cunts.
You had me until here. If you want to monetize online video content or get widespread appeal, YouTube is pretty much the viable choice atm, save for Twitch which only works if you’re a streamer or Nebula, which even then it alone doesn’t suffice and is very specific. If you plan on trying to “make it big” using PeerTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc. alone, your aspirations may as well be dead on arrival.
Not losing sleep over the money content creators lose over you using adblock is fine, I personally don’t put too much importance on it myself. But to call them all dumbasses or stupid cunts is just unreasonable, given the lack of a proper, popular alternative for most of them to do what they do.
I don’t agree with the name calling, but many content creators have already set a website, with some outside revenue sources like Patreon, selling merchandise, or other stuff.
They can’t leave the most popular platform, but they can set up alternatives for when it stops being the most popular, and in the meantime also target people who are leaving it already.
Oh yeah, I agree it’s a wise decision for any content creator, especially those who want to make a living from it, to diversify their sources of income. Backing up all content they post on YouTube to other sites as well is also really nice as it contributes to the push away from YouTube without having to risk little on their part as well
Fair enough. The thing is, do I vote for the near-anarchists, that, save for the anarchism, align with my principles? Do I vote for the party that is further away from my ideological beliefs, but doesn’t have the anarchism, and is a bit larger? Or do I vote for the main opposition, which is even further from me ideologically (and doesn’t seem to have much of a clear vision)?
That sounds like a question about how much you oppose anarchy. Any change, involves some loss of established order, so if the Overton window tells us something, is that “anarchist parties” are just the ones trying to push it stronger. Actual anarchists, wouldn’t try to be part of a government in the first place.
Okay, but then we still have the problem of FPTP. If I’m in a Labour dominated constituency and I vote LibDem, my vote wouldn’t matter cuz Labour will win anyways. And if I live in a Greens Stronghold and I vote Greens, my vote wouldn’t really matter, as they would have won with or without my vote. The way I see it, your vote can only make a difference in a constituency where there is no clear winner, and it’s everybody’s game.
Please correct me if I’m wrong in my assessment of the situation.
Then you want to fight FPTP and vote pruning by constituency, to make your vote matter.
You could vote blank, or a poop emoji to show your disconformity, but organizing or supporting a protest to reform the voting system might be more effective.
If we counted all those who don’t vote because it “doesn’t change anything”, those who vote blank or null, and those who vote knowing their vote will still get thrown away… it could actually make a majority.
It’ll be a shame if I have to ditch YouTube. There’s only 2 or 3 channels I would even consider paying for and they don’t have Patreon or anything. I’m less than interested in giving Google a cut.
Google will try everything in their power to stop us from blocking their ads. It’s their main source of revenue, you don’t have to be a genius to see why they don’t like ad blockers
Wouldn’t this show that they failed, if they have to recur to site-based adblocker blocking? Clearly v3 hasn’t stopped people from using Firefox, yt-dl, or whatever.
The Gecko Engine (Firefox), holds a user share of 4%. When compared to Chromium's (Google Chrome and its clones) whooping 72% (roughly) user share, it's clear that Firefox has limited relevance to their business strategy.
(according to latest statistics, Firefox would have an even lower share)
My point is: if v3 were effective at neutralizing ad blockers in 75% of the user base, or even 95% since Safari is supposed to get on board too, why are they developing additional countermeasures?
Or has Safari decided to do like Firefox, and still allow full ad blockers?
I reckon that blocking ad blockers isn't some extra countermeasure here. It's actually right in line with what Manifest V3 and that new environment attestation system are all about. They're basically making sure that if you tinker with crucial bits of the JavaScript -- stuff they see as essential (like anti-adblock) -- you won't make it through the attestation and you'll get blocked.
They don't want to block all modifications because that would be a hindrance to many users, for example the visually impaired. However, anything affecting their bottom line will probably be blocked.
How that will affect Firefox? I don't know, maybe nothing will change for us, or perhaps Google will block Firefox altogether. We certainly know they're capable.
Yes, attestation is in line with V3 changes, just that it makes them irrelevant: YouTube’s website could some day ask for environment attestation of “no extension using the intercept hooks”, or “only the approved ones”, and still have the same effect. The fact that they’re implementing a server-side anti-adblock now, while postponing V2 deprecation over and over, makes me think the V3 changes are a flop.
Firefox… would likely require Mozilla to play ball and implement similar attestation in an official binary attestable by the OS. Edge too, just so MS doesn’t mess with Chrome’s binary attestation on Windows.
Safari already has attestation, without extra parameters, but it could be extended:
I’d gladly pay for a reasonably priced service (probably no more than $20/mo, but even that is on the steep side) where I could watch whatever game I’d like with no blackouts. Unfortunately, that doesn’t exist, so, here we arr.
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind just paying a season-pack for the sport that I’m interested in. Picking & choosing the competitions I want to see, and maybe having the option to pay for 1-off games. This isn’t possible though because networks/companies buy exclusive rights, so for one competition I need this subscription, for another I need this. It fucking sucks!
That being said, any recommendations on a good setup for live sports on a smart TV? In the past, I’ve streamed on a website on my laptop, and then plug in to my TV via HDMi. I’ve tried Kodi in the past but has been super unreliable for me for live-sports. Any other recommendations?
I can’t help much on that front. If I’d like to watch on the TV, I do the same and just cast from a laptop or PC. There’s IPTV, but it’s a whole other rabbit hole that I’m not familiar with.
What happens to me now with Firefox and ublock origin is if i leave a video paused in the background for a long time and then it unloads it and then I click it to continue watching so it loads back up, then it plays an ad. I was legit like cat-confused because I haven’t seen an ad on the internet in years.
Same! I was taken aback and offended all at once then refreshed to get rid of the ad which thankfully still works… But for how long more is the question 😭
piracy
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.