Technology

58125 readers

3857 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Youtube's Anti-adblock is illegal in the EU (eupolicy.social)

submitted 11 months ago by ugjka@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he's making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they're doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn't stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he's repeatedly flaunting credentials that don't change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.

[–] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

You're missing the point/s

What they're doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
What they're doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn't be able to help themselves to users local data, and it's something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a "dead end", it's the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.

[–] Demuniac@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I'd guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they've had enough.

[–] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I get what you are saying, but you could argue that google is pretty much a monopoly at this point, using their power trying to extract money from customers they could never do if their was any real competition with a similar number of channels and customers.

I think most users see google/youtube as a "the internet", or a utility as important as power, water and heat. And don't forget that google already requires users to "pay" for their services with data and ads in other services (maps, search, mail) as well.

load more comments (3 replies)