YouTube video lag wrongly blamed on its ad-blocking animus

Google claims users of popular ad-blocking extensions have wrongly blamed YouTube for slow video streaming speeds – and that the content filters themselves are the reason for stuttering playback. The extensions in question are Adblock Plus, a popular browser add-on for zapping adverts before they're shown, and a related one …

[The Dogs Meevonks]

I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I've seen videos of people using youtube and content not loading, and then turning of their adblocker and the content loads perfectly.

I've tried this myself and have experienced exactly the same thing.

So you'll have to forgive me if I assume that google are a bunch of lying, wankers who have declared war on anyone who dares to try and stop their invasive, toxic behaviours. They only have themselves to blame for people wanting to block them, because they're toxic, they're entitled and think they have a right to our data, our privacy and to force feed us whatever any fucker is willing to pay them to do... whether we like it or not.

Fuck the ad industry and those that support their practices.

Nuke em from orbit... it's the only way to be sure.

[Dinanziame]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

You haven't read the article at all, have you? If you update your adblocker to the latest version, or change to a different adblocker, it will run fine.

[The Dogs Meevonks]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I did read it, i use firefox, ublock, noscript, privacy badger and so forth... I'm just sick and tired of these wargames and the constant back and forth with entitled wanker corps and their belief that they are entitled to my information and privacy, as well as the money in my wallet if I dare to object to their rightful ownership of it.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"I'm just sick and tired of these wargames and the constant back and forth with entitled wanker corps and their belief that they are entitled to my information and privacy"

And I'm sick of entitled wanker users running around expecting the world on a plate for free.

If you're using a 'free' service, like YouTube, then it's fair that they lay down certain T&Cs in order to monetise. In the case of YouTube, you get access to videos, a content creation suite and a platform for promotion, in exchange for your data which pays for the service. You don't have to use it, and they're not obliged to provide it to you free of charge.

Either man up, stop trying to get something for nothing, or stop using it. Either way, stop complaining.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

If YouTube want to go behind a paywall, that is entirely up to them. Just don't steal my data.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Theft (n):

(1) The felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it..

(2) An unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.

Learn what words mean before using them.

[Helcat]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Or (the bit you missed)

Data theft: The act of stealing digital information stored on computers, servers, or electronic devices to obtain confidential information or compromise privacy.

The original concept of theft was taking something without the owners permission. That this would deprive the owner of this thing, when said item was physical, became the harm done. However, with the digital age, the concept was revisited and reviewed and for digital items and data, it's back to 'obtaining without permission', at least in the UK.

Words do have meanings, but unfortunately those meanings change as society (and technology) change. It's quite a field of study to follow these changes, and is why some countries try to limit such change.

[Helcat]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

The issue with Terms and Services is where they are not well defined. 'No ad-blockers' seems simple enough, yes, but that introduces issues:

Are the ads appropriate? Youtube has been feeding ads to children's accounts, including ads for gambling, alcohol, expensive holidays and more. They haven't addressed this even when it was reported to them and questioned. Worse is YT are profiting by doing this so they don't have an incentive to stop. Instead it falls to parents to take action to protect their children (and I include pre-teen - the case from the above was 6 and the parent was very annoyed

Are the ads legal? If I had a penny for every advert for something that isn't legal in the uk, I'd have... a couple of quid. But the point is I've seen ads on youtube for products that aren't legal here.

Are the ads for scams? Yup! Seen those, too. not as bad as with Facebook, but they're there.

Are the ads excessive and/or intrusive? Hell yes! A string of ads that took more time to play than the video I was trying to watch = way too many.

Are the ads invasive? Well, not on Youtube, but then I block pop-up windows via the browser so perhaps they do try that trick and I just don't see it.

Answer: Well, one point is to simply not use Youtube. That's what I decided when their measures affected me, and I wasn't using an ad-blocker (script blocker, yes, and anti-malware and YT seemed to get those mixed up with ad-blockers. Or I was blocking their ad-blocker code). However, that doesn't help if what you need to watch is hosted on youtube (business vids, H&S, training - they get hosted on YT because... reasons). When they get hit by ads... or are blocked... (also note the above points about abusive ads and why this can be a problem).

OR rebel: Use tools to limit, control or remove ads in a protest to YT to get them to take a more responsible and reasonable approach to their Ad greed. I know it's how they make their money, but they've been getting greedy and that's damaged the trust between them and those who use YT. Honestly, T&C are fine, and ads do pay for the service, but it's not an excuse for abuse by YT. I'm also not a fan of people wanting everything for free - there's a cost involved in providing the service, and those ads also help pay content providers, which encourage them to provide content. Without those ads, a lot of people suffer. But equally there has to be a better way, and YT won't investigate that unless they're forced to, which isn't helpful.

So yes, your point is perfectly valid - up to the point that YT is being greedy and abusive - that's when I start to see a valid argument against them.

But yes, alternatives exist. Such a shame there's been a campaign backed by certain corporations to suppress them.

[DS999]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Found the Google employee, or entitled millennial "content creator" who thinks they deserve to make a living for a few hours of work a week making a video talking about stupid shit.

[Orv]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I mean, if it's so stupid, don't watch. To say you're entitled to it for free because it's so stupid is trying to have it both ways.

[Orv]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

As someone who supports a web service that doesn't use ads...I still hate ad/script blockers. It's hard to troubleshoot user issues when they're randomly blocking parts of your application.

[navarac]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Even if you PAY for a service, that provider is still slurping your data for Ad purpose, So don't give us a sad sob story about poor old YT etc.

[MrDamage]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

>> "And I'm sick of entitled wanker users running around expecting the world on a plate for free."

Are the websites willing to take 100% legal and financial liability for malware served by the adverts placed on their websites? No.

Are the advertising networks willing to take 100% financial and legal liability for malware served via their advertising network, whether by "legitimate" purchase of ad-space, or hacking? No.

Do advertisers take it as fact that if you buy a new toilet seat online, you are now starting a hobby of collecting toilet seats? Yes.

Can any advertising company explain to me exactly why they need to share my toilet seat purchase with ANYONE? No.

Advertising has been the biggest drain on QA department budgets for decades.

[Law]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"And I'm sick of entitled wanker users running around expecting the world on a plate for free."

"Either man up, stop trying to get something for nothing, or stop using it. Either way, stop complaining."

I pay for youtube family premium, but still keep my adblocker enabled and use firefox - am I allowed to complain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: it will run fine

until Google update their system to detect all adblockers and simply refuse to show anything let alone a message saying that YouTube does not like you for using an adblocker.

It is a war of attrition.the Adblockers work out a fix, Google blocks that fix... rinse and repeat.

FSCK Google and all that it slurps from us without asking.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: it will run fine

"until Google update their system to detect all adblockers and simply refuse to show anything let alone a message saying that YouTube does not like you for using an adblocker."

Which they're perfectly entitled to do, in exchange for providing a 'free' service. There's no reason why they should provide the service without compensation in some form or other, and your data is the currency which pays for it.

[Necrohamster]

Re: it will run fine

As they say, if you're using a "free" service...you're the product.

On the flip side, many regulatory bodies have quite rightly called out Alphabet aka Google's attempts to slurp our personal information.

e.g. "Google uses unclear language and deceptive designs that trick users into agreeing to give up their data, EU watchdogs have said."

I could sit here all day highlighting similar cases...

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: it will run fine

The safest, simplest assumption to make is that if you're using a free service, any and all of your data that they can (legally) get their hands on can and will be slurped.

If users don't want this, they need to pay for the service (and even then, check the T&Cs carefully).

[Strong as Taishan Mountains]

Re: it will run fine

Please enlighten us to a paid service that won't do every horrible data theft practice and worse?

There aren't any, because data privacy wise every last actor is just completely out of control

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: it will run fine

No. Do your own research.

[Cris E]

Re: it will run fine

Um, if data privacy is that important to you then perhaps the internet is not a place you should be spending too much time. Go read a nice analog book, walk in real sunlight, talk to actual people IRL. Hanging around "free" online sites while preserving anonymity is hard unless you invest some effort in it because the default state of things has to generate enough money to keep the servers running.

For example I'm under no illusions that my FB time is being sold, but my FB profile is pretty much comprised only of the things I read because I post nothing so my privacy is not violated too heavily. It's a trade I'm OK with. If you think any data sale at all is a "horrible data theft practice and worse" then you're going to find things pretty stressful for the foreseeable future and maybe you should consider moving in with the Amish.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: it will run fine

@Cris E you're correct - but don't expect many here to agree with you. Most seem to believe they have an intrinsic right to 'free' services with no conditions, and are shocked and disgusted to hear that companies like Google will actually try to monetise them.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: it will run fine

No, we have a right to services where the providers are absolutely clear, open and explicit about what they do to monetise and that they get full permission from their users for it.

As I said above, if YouTube want to go behind a paywall instead that is absolutely fine by me.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: it will run fine

"No, we have a right to services where the providers are absolutely clear, open and explicit about what they do to monetise and that they get full permission from their users for it."

You absolutely do. Nobody is denying this.

[doublelayer]

Re: it will run fine

Google are not violating your rights by inserting ads any more than we are violating their rights by running code to strip out stuff we don't want to run. The issue of data collection is a separate one, and that one does come under data protection law, but that law governs whether and when they are allowed to collect data about you, not whether they can put in advertisements or whether they can change their code to make it more likely for you to see them. Like you, I dislike Google's data collection and I think they should face penalties for what they have done and continue to do, but I also recognize that, if I get everything I asked for and they stop collecting data except if they get true informed consent, there will still be ads on YouTube and they'll still want me to and take actions to try to make me watch them. They'll have to fight with my ad blockers to do so, but it will not be illegal for them to do that.

[ChoHag]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Yes, and users feel like they're entitled to google's storage and bandwidth. You'll have to forgive me if I assume they're a bunch of pretentious, lazy wankers.

Google doesn't force feed anybody anything.

You can always ... ignore them.

[Necrohamster]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"users feel like they're entitled to google's storage and bandwidth...".

Google analyses every byte you store in their cloud or that passes through their pipes. Users aren't getting something for nothing.

"Google doesn't force feed anybody anything."

lol, naive. You sure about that?

Google reportedly pays $18 billion a year to be Apple’s default search engine

"You can always ... ignore them."

Not really. People are opted in to their data slurping.

Opting out (if someone can even first realise or understand that they've been opted in) is a deliberately byzantine process spread across multiple pages/sites.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"Users aren't getting something for nothing."

They're not - but many assume they're entitled to it. Which is what the I, the OP and anybody else with more than half a brain is saying.

""Google doesn't force feed anybody anything."" (quotes Google paying Apple to be the default search engine).

Last I checked, you weren't obliged to use Apple. Or their default search engine. There are other alternatives out there, you know.

"Opting out (if someone can even first realise or understand that they've been opted in) is a deliberately byzantine process spread across multiple pages/sites."

Go to your Google Account.

On the left, click Data & privacy.

Under “Linked Google Services,” select Manage linked services.

Select the services you want linked and select Next.

Review your selections and select Confirm and then Done and then Got it.

Ooh. Rocket science.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Go to your Google Account.

I don't have one of those. And I don't store (let alone provide back) any cookies from their sites. And that means they have never received any permission to record or guess or use or store anything about me.

If that meant that I couldn't use any of their services - that allowing them to know about me was the price for using their services - I would be fine with that. I don't use Google search, or mail, or Android, anything I would miss (I pay companies I trust quite a lot of money for those things already). So, I wouldn't pay their price and wouldn't use their service.

But, of course, they don't prevent me from using their services. They need the network effect: they are only viable if lots of people use their service - so they just try to steal my data without permission. EITHER: make creating an account and agreeing to allowing processing a requirement OR stop trying to track people who choose not to provide data.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"I don't have one of those. And I don't store (let alone provide back) any cookies from their sites. And that means they have never received any permission to record or guess or use or store anything about me."

In which case they don't have any data that the law says they're not allowed to have without permission. Unless you're claiming they collect it ILLEGALLY, which is a whole different ballgame. I suspect you'd need proof if you wanted to be taken seriously on that.

"so they just try to steal my data without permission."

How do you know? Where and how do they do this? Do you have any evidence?

[heyrick]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"Ooh. Rocket science."

Okay, then. Here's one for you. I have an Android phone. The phone itself is linked to my Google account for stuff like app updates and so on.

Recently (like two or three years ago) Google changed something so now when you visit their site in Chrome, it is logged in under that same account.

Worse, there's no sensible way to log out. Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself.

Add that to various Google Play Services updates (that are forced, you can't not update) which appear to like to turn data slurping options ON without notification. I told my phone not to back up its settings and such to Google Drive. Recently I've had to rinse and repeat when this turned into Google One. I'm sure in a couple of months something else will change and these sorts of options will "helpfully" default to being enabled.

So, feel free to continue being a fanboy/shill for Google but note that it's getting ever harder to defend the indefensible - that what they really trade in is people's privacy and they'll do whatever to get hold of information. Information. INFORMATION! (I feel like this is the point where I should slam open some large doors and say that I'm not a number...)

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Worse, there's no sensible way to log out. Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account.

Easy. Sign out of devices you no longer use

So, feel free to continue being a fanboy/shill for Google

Could not be further from the truth. In fact if anything, I'm Apple through and through and generally have a deep dislike for anything Googley - as my history here clearly shows. I just intensely dislike misinformation.

...that what they really trade in is people's privacy and they'll do whatever to get hold of information. Information. INFORMATION!

Absolutely correct, and literally nobody here is denying this. The point, as people seem to be wilfully obtuse in understanding, is that they have a RIGHT to monetise the provision of a free service; and to set the conditions of that monetisation. You're not obliged to use the service, in which case your data and privacy won't be an issue; but if you do use it, expect to accept their terms - that your data and privacy pays the bills.

[doublelayer]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I'm not sure you're fully understanding their complaint. You've linked to a page called "Sign out of devices you no longer use". They're quite clearly saying that they do continue to use the device, and they want to continue using the device, but they don't want their account which is used for one purpose on the device to collect information from different parts of the device. One of those parts is a system function: backing up data. One part is an application function: web browser activity. They wish the data collection for those parts to be turned off while continuing to use the account for app installation. Your page is not relevant to their problem.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

”Your page is not relevant to their problem.“

The OP stated: “Worse, there's no sensible way to log out. Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself.

My answer (well, technically Google’s answer) provided a sensible way to log out, without being ”on the phone” - as the OP put it. And is thus very relevant.

If the OP meant something other than what they wrote, then they need to be clearer in describing the issue.

[heyrick]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Stop cherry picking to make an irrelevant point. The very next sentence said "Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself."

Which part of that was hard to understand?

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"Instead one must log out on their phone to disconnect the browser from the account. The browser, a separate app running on the device, not the phone OS itself."

Yes, so logging the browser out, remotely, disconnects it from the [Google] account. It doesn't need to be done on the phone, it can be done remotely. Which is what the OP wanted to do, but claimed couldn't be done.

Stop trying to drive home a point which has been demonstrated - multiple times - to be wrong.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

The Upvote/Downvote ratio here fairly accurately represents People with Common Sense / Freeloaders.

[Necrohamster]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"The Upvote/Downvote ratio here fairly accurately represents People with Common Sense / Freeloaders."

Or maybe you're consistently collecting downvotes because you're consistently wrong. Something for you to consider...

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Care to show me one single thing I've said here that's wrong? I'll wait.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

2 downvotes, still no evidence. Chop chop.

[doublelayer]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

You can't know what people had as their reasons for voting on your posts. Before I continue, I have not voted on any posts in this topic in either direction. For example, someone who downvoted a post talking about Google's data collection, to what extent they do it, to what extent they used to do it, and to what extent you can prevent them doing it may have a very different perspective than someone who downvotes a post about advertising practices. If you attempt to describe them all the same way, you will undoubtedly be annoying some of them by misinterpreting their views, so expect to receive downvotes on that sentiment.

Based on my own views, I think we agree about some things and disagree about others. You can see a summary of my opinion in my other post here if you're interested, but it's not very important to this discussion of why people voted and whether it speaks well or badly of them.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

@doublelayer thank you for your comment. For subjective questions, you're absolutely right. The thing is, I'm genuinely interested in the reasons for downvoting posts which are nothing but objective fact. Are people downvoting because they are denying the fact? Or because they know in their hearts that the fact is true, but just don't like it; and therefore dislike by proxy the person stating the fact?

To reference the theme of my comments on this thread: it is objective fact that people may not expect that an expensive service be provided to them for free, and that the provider of the service is entitled to look for ways to cover costs and monetise the provision of the service.

And yet it is set in stone that to state this fact generates a flood of downvotes. Why? Do people believe the statement is incorrect? I would like to know, but unfortunately without making it mandatory to provide a comment when voting, the answers will likely never be known...

[Graham Cobb]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Just in case you have really missed the point and not just trying to generate more downvotes for the hell of it...

it is objective fact that people may not expect that an expensive service be provided to them for free, and that the provider of the service is entitled to look for ways to cover costs and monetise the provision of the service.

No, sorry, that is not an objective fact: it is false. I would claim that the exact contrary is an objective fact: many expensive services can be expected to be provided to many people for free because it enables the provider to generate more money somewhere else (which may have nothing to do with monetising the provision of the service).

There are the very obvious examples of governments and charities, who both provide expensive services for free which are paid for by other people.

More relevantly to this discussion... many services are funded by the "network effect" - they are paid for by the small proportion of users who receive a large amount of value from the fact that very many people use the service entirely for free.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"No, sorry, that is not an objective fact: it is false. I would claim that the exact contrary is an objective fact: many expensive services can be expected to be provided to many people for free because it enables the provider to generate more money somewhere else (which may have nothing to do with monetising the provision of the service)."

Even if the money is being generated somewhere else, it's still monetising the provision of the service. If Microsoft provides OneDrive for "free" as an enticement to sell Office 365 subscriptions, then it is still monetising the provision of the OneDrive service through revenue generated through said subscriptions and elsewhere. If a government provides a "free" service such as the NHS, it is being monetised in the background by NI contributions and taxes with the express intention of providing the service back to the people who have funded it. Sure, there may be freeloaders who have never contributed yet expect to use it, but my original point stands:

"it is objective fact that people may not expect that an expensive service be provided to them for free". Some may try to obtain it for free, as has been evidenced by the comments on this thread, but they may not expect it.

It beggars belief that so many (presumably) otherwise intelligent people fail to understand this most basic of concepts.

[heyrick]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

"I would claim that the exact contrary is an objective fact"

Not only this, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect a service to monetise itself by means of a subscription. The newspaper - subscription. Netflix - subscription. The company that provides you with the cable that the data falls out of - subscription.

The provision of a service for "free" is more akin a sort of bait and switch where you're being enticed by something but without realising the true cost.

Sure, they are entitled to ask something from you in return for the service. This isn't being argued. However what it is they want in return, how much of it they want, and what is later done with that... generally are either not disclosed, or disclosed in the vaguest possible terms ("collect device metrics for service improvements").

I have a feeling that if people understood the extent of the data collection and the inferences made by it, more than a few would be horrified by this going on without any oversight or explicit permission. The rampant pillaging of people's privacy is not okay.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

For the record, I've upvoted your post because it's reasonable and correct. I would say that "Not only this, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect a service to monetise itself by means of a subscription" is a means to monetise, but by no means the only way. Collecting and selling user data is a fully legitimate way to monetise the provision of a free service, as long as the terms and conditions are clearly articulated so the user can make an informed choice.

As I've said - and been downvoted for - many times above.

[desht]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I dunno, it feels more representative of whiny babies who can't take a downvote.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I will freely admit - I don't like downvotes without a reason. I find it pathetically weak and one of the curses of social media these days.

In fact I'd take it a step further; a comment should be mandatory when downvoting.

[Lyndication]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

If you can't handle the digital equivalent of slight-head-shake-and-sigh from other people then I don't really know how you manage online.

Worth noting that a significant number of the downvotes are likely through trying to be combative about it, drawing attention to it as though you're persecuted, and generally posting in an abrasive and derisive.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Oh sure the Streisand effect is in evidence here; and the downvotes don't bother me at an emotional level. Interesting analogy of the slight-head-shake-and-sigh; I think that's accurate. I also think that if people did that to you in real life when you made a simple, logical and correct statement, you would be equally intrigued as to why they appear to misunderstand or disapprove of something so basic. In fact if it happened in real life, you would be justified in asking them why. As in fact I'm doing here.

[ChoHag]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

It's fun to court them.

Pile on, everyone! Everyone who's got a google shoved down their throat downvote away to try to convince yourself that you didn't put it there.

[Lon24]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Depends on how you define force feed.

My TV has a YouTube app. A few clicks on the remote and I get videos and ads. I assume Google may pay the TV manufacturer for their place in the list. Whereas if I want to watch a non-ad, non-algorithm free video service - I can't. Well yes I could go upstairs and watch it on my desktop with much smaller screen or laptop with its tinny speaker.

Theoretically I could use the TV web browser. But have you tried? It's designed to be be a non-functioning feature for all but the most masochistic. The bottom line is these companies don't force you - but tilt the playing field so sharply that no matter where you want to kick the ball its ends up monetised in their net.

And creators have to go where the viewers are. And the viewers go to where the creators are - whether the creator is commercial or doing it for free.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Can you not sign in on your TV YouTube app? If you've paid for ad-free then that's what you should get when you sign in. At least that's how it works on my AppleTV, my LG WebOS TV and my phone.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Honestly who downvotes these things :D

[stiine]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

Those of us without your GPS location and a handy ICBM. And no, I don't care if everyone within 10 miles of you ceases to be at the same time as you.

[Lord Elpuss]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

@stiine thank you for confirming the general shoe-size IQ of people who downvote without giving a reason ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[david 12]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

My TV has a YouTube app.

My TV *had* a YouTube app. Then YouTube changed the API.

[Antron Argaiv]

Re: I can smell something... smells a lot like bullshit

I run NoScript and uBlock Origin, and have seen no issues yet with YouTube content.

Firefox on Linux Mint 21.2

Just one data point.

[Tubz]

Although I can agree with "The Dogs Meevonks" comment, just moving to a better browser is less drastic cause of action than a "nuke'm" policy but when the only alternative is Firefox which needs to play catchup, rethink is UI or lets be honest go back to what made Firefox the best browser and the rest are Chrome clones.

[Pascal Monett]

Firefox works fine for me, don't get all the hate. That said, I use it with NoScript, UBlock Origin, and various other addons (ClearURLs is a favorite of mine).

I also use Brave, which kills ads by default. I wonder what is going to happen to them.

In any case, I've never seen a popup warning about ad blocking on Firefox - probably because NoScript kills that.

I love NoScript. I'll keep using it on every browser I have for as long as I can.

[MJI]

Firefox UBlock fine

Just works, as expected

[Necrohamster]

Re: Firefox UBlock fine

Yep, can concur

[Magani]

Brave + PiHole

That is all.

[Helcat]

Nope- I use noscript on Firefox and I got the warnings. I didn't use an adblocker, however. So I went and added Ublock Origin and... no more threats/blocks/etc.

Mind you, I'd stopped using Youtube as they were blocking me seeing videos despite me not having an adblocker. So I've moved over to Odyssey, Vimeo and a few others. Only went back to see if adding UBlock Origin had helped or made things worse - and found it had helped - I could see videos again .Just... not so interested any more - I'm not anti-ad (I accept they're needed to pay to maintain the service) but I don't like the draconian approach, especially as some ads are cons, some are malicious, some are inappropriate for the audience, and YT had decided to also go excessive on them (they got greedy - although I suspect they'd claim they have to make up lost revenue from people using ad blockers).

[stiine]

Lucky you.

My current Firefox installation hangs after 3-4 days of use. I don't have more than a dozen tabs at a time (I currently have two) and that won't make a difference. In a day or two, I'll have to open task manager and kill firefox again.

[Trixr]

Re: Lucky you.

Maybe some extension you're using. I have a few dozen tabs open, typically, incl youtube videos, and have zero issues with hangs. Might be worth disabling all of them (although uBlock is definitely fine) and seeing if it's more stable.

Then again, I shutdown my machine each night - call me old-fashioned, but a cold start cures a lot of woes still. I don't care about waiting a minute for it to boot up each day.

[Pascal Monett]

Re: Lucky you.

I'm guessing you leave your computer on 24/7 and you're using Windows.

Like Trixr, I shut my PC down when I go to bed, and I only turn it back on when I intend to use it.

Maybe Firefox is not the problem here.

[The Dogs Meevonks]

I use firefox with numerous plugins (noscript/ublock/privacy badger and so forth, plus others like clearurls and a couple of youtube ones to get rid of 'shorts' and enhance playback... I place all google sites in their own container too.

But I must confess that I'm sick and tired of playing this wargame... having to constantly battle against sites who want to invade my privacy and harvest everything about me without my consent.

So if I could 'nuke em' in some way... I would. :)

[phuzz]

Why does Firefox need to rethink it's UI, when it's already basically the same as Chrome?

Both have tabs along the top, under that you have Back, Forward, and Reload, then an address bar (that's also a search bar). Then the icons for whatever addons you have installed.

There some differences when you go into the menus, but that's 99% of most people's interactions with their browser.

[DJV]

Re: when it's already basically the same as Chrome

Yeah, that's the problem. Thank goodness for CustomCSSforFx which means it's possible to make it look like it did around version 50 with a properly usable interface!

[HandleBaz]

The Lords Work

Raymond Hill is doing the Lords Work.

If I met him in person, I would buy him a case of lager.

[sarusa]

uBlock Origin FTW

So glad I don't have to use the 'Spawn of Satan' icon for once.

uBlock Origin has always been better than Adblock/Adblock Plus since it came into being specifically because Adblock was such a bloated pig at that point. Like the UO page says 'Finally, an efficient wide-spectrum content blocker. Easy on CPU and memory.' I can't see any reason to be using Adblock anything rather than uBlock Origin - I guess people just don't know and Adblock is the first thing they find.

[Korev]

Re: uBlock Origin FTW

Another happy uBlock Origin user here

[Jellied Eel]

Re: uBlock Origin FTW

/AOL me to!

Although I did kinda hope it was AlphaGoo getting up to it's usual evil. After all, they argue that 'Net Neutrality would lead to evil service providers deliberately slowing down content for customers that didn't pay. AlphaGoo wouldn't do that themselves of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: uBlock Origin FTW

shhhhh, don't shout, remember what happened with a newcomer called 'google search engine'...

[MJI]

Re: uBlock Origin FTW

Moved to it from ABP no regrets use it on mobile too, so get surprised when other phone users see adverts and I do not.

[MonkeyJuice]

Ask me 30 years ago if I thought it'd be mandatory to be running a massive, distributed game of Core Wars all over my PC, and I'd call you crazy. Yet, here we are.

What a time to be alive.

[Necrohamster]

Surprise, surprise

"...Adblock Plus 3.22 and AdBlock 5.17...are separate but related projects that are both owned by eyeo, an ad filtering company that makes money by not blocking so-called “Acceptable Ads,” for a fee. The Germany-based biz, run since 2022 by Frank Einecke, former Google managing director of global marketing partners"

There you have it: two ad-blockers that don't block ads, whose parent company is run by a person who used to be a marketing overlord at an ad company.

Shady.

[cipnt]

Ads are not the problem

The problem is the tracking, profiling and the invasion of privacy.

I recommend AdGuard Home, which blocks any trackers or dodgy ads providers at the DNS level.

[MiguelC]

Re: Ads are not the problem

I recommend using all of it - AdGuard DNS, uBlock Origin, NoScript, Cookie AutoDelete, Tracking Token Stripper, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ads are not the problem

DNS blockers are no use if the adverts or scripts are on the site itself. You need something that actually scans and filters pages.

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube adverts

When ever seen:

Dodgy products that clearly don’t work and endless public service messages about not drinking alcohol while breast feeding.

I’m a bloke in my 60s.

[Necrohamster]

Re: YouTube adverts

For me, it's Fairy Non-bio detergent and hair replacement clinics in Turkey. Both missing their target demographic by a long shot...

[MJI]

Re: YouTube adverts

What adverts?

[Richard 12]

Re: YouTube adverts

80% of the ads that seem to turn up are "This ${obvious_scam} is taking the industry by storm"

I've given up reporting them.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Other browser architectures are available.

"When Google phases out its legacy extension architecture, possibly as soon as June 2024, Manifest v3, uBlock Origin is expected to stop working will continue to work just fine on Firefox."

FTFY.

[Marty McFly]

I'll take that deal!!

"In November 2023, the Google-owned vid-streaming site confirmed to The Register that it intentionally imposed a page-loading delay for those browsing YouTube while running ad-blocking extensions.

Let's see... A delay loading the video. Versus forced to watch an annoying advertisement targeted at a demographic which I am not a part of. That sounds like a deal to me!

Seriously Google/YouTube, with all your tracking you haven't figured out my basic demographics yet? I make no apologies for being a heterosexual male with a normal sex drive. I admit it, show me advertisements of hot women in bikini's selling lite beer and I will probably watch them.

Showing me advertisements targeted at a demographic I am not even remotely part of is just a waste of everyone's time. Advertisers should not be paying Google/YouTube for those ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make sure you use Ad Nauseum too so you cost those advertisers money while it clicks on every advert in the background!

[DS999]

Google should just refuse to run with an adblocker

Rather than intentionally degrade their service and then lie about the reason. If they were able to detect the ablocker I'm using (FF+uBlock Origin on Linux desktop and Safari+Firefox Focus on iPhone) and lock me out then I could respond by refusing to use their service.

If there was some sort of "must have" (like some company that provides installation instructions on Youtube, which I've encountered before) then I can use my throwaway VM that gets reset after every use to view it with the adblocker disabled. I assuming/hoping a company putting an instructional video on Youtube would not pepper it with ads for unrelated stuff. If they did I would complain, and if within the return window might exercise that option as well to avoid encouraging that sort of thing.

Obviously Google is worried about the consumer backlash if they were just honest about their motives, so they are trying deceit instead by lying to people about ad blockers causing problems. The idea that they increase CPU usage and that's why Youtube is slow is laughable - they greatly REDUCE CPU usage because of all the junk they block from every page you visit! What Google wants is to create disinformation about adblockers hoping people will remove them, rather than just disabling them for youtube.com which is what they'd do if Google blocked them but they still wanted to visit Youtube. Their reasons are obvious - they want to monetize all the suckers everywhere else they go, so getting them to remove the adblocker completely instead of just disabling it for one site makes them more money!

[doublelayer]

Re: Google should just refuse to run with an adblocker

So the technical review from a person who develops another blocker, one that Google's been trying to break for a while, didn't convince you? If lots of people identify that it's a feature of a particular piece of software, it still must be deliberate? Is there anything you could hear that would convince you that it wasn't Google doing it?

[Dan 55]

I don't think Google can claim they haven't touched anything when serving videos, the YouTube plugin for Kodi has started hanging after 10-15 seconds when DASH is enabled, but once that is disabled everything works fine.

[everyone_but_the_girl]

Let's cut the bulldust.

I run u block origin. Over the last two weeks I have frequently got lagging on YouTube. Especially on live streams. I have been the only one lagged in these instances; nobody else in the chat window is mentioning it.It is YouTube doing this. It also happens with u block origin.

I'm out. I've gone to peer tube. I watch geeky Linux videos. Peer tube has a lot of those e,g Veronica Explains, The Linux Experiment.