This message is displayed in the browser because Google asked your browser to do it, and your browser got the message and put it there.
When displaying ads, the end user experience is 100% client-side. You are using your screen and speakers to observe it. You can turn off your speakers and screen if you want, which will effectively “block” the ad.
But that is silly. Not only do you own your screen and speakers, but you have control of what you’re browser is doing, too (if you use a respectable browser). When HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other content is downloaded, just that happened: file downloads. After it has been downloaded, your browser then consumes it.
When it is consumed, a lot happens, but ultimately, the code in the browser displays content. Your (respectable) browser does all of this, and will change the look depending on local fonts, accessibility options, etc. With an ad block add-on, it will also remove these ads.
However, when ads are removed, the DOM is mutated with deleted or replaced content. It is possible for a website to then write ad block detection scripts to see if the ad contents have been removed or not. There are many ways to do this, and this screenshot is the result of one way of doing it.
However, enter the cat-and-mouse-chase of ad block block blocks. You can block your ads, then block the ad block block like this screenshot. These types of ad block rules are less common, but many public ones are available. Check the uBlock Origin lists in the setting page. By default, only about a third of the lists are enabled, and these extra blocks are in there.
Another avenue of determining that ads were not loaded is for the server to inspect if client-side (you) requests were made to fetch the ads. Even if this is in place, the server cannot determine if you have actually watched the ad or not. It could try to do more client-side attempts at validating that you somehow displayed it, but again, that’s client-side.
Imagine if you were sent a letter and a pamphlet in the mail. Imagine if the letter said that you could mail them back for a free sample of their product, but only if you read the pamphlet. They would have to trust that you read it, because you are reading your mail in the privacy of your own home. However, you could opt to toss the pamphlet (like an ad blocker) and never read it. It’s your mail, your home, and your choice.
The worst case scenario is that they only serve video to logged-in users, require accounts to be verified with government-issued ID, and enforce the whole thing with the web browser DRM they just proposed.
Make no mistake: this is a war on the public’s property rights and their right not to have ads inflicted on them Clockwork Orange-style. It can get a lot worse than you think, and will unless we force the government to stop them legislatively.
Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right. It’s an optional service. Why aren’t we all up in arms about the 5,000 porn sites that have paywalled their services for years? IMO the response to “youtube won’t let users use the site without ads” should be “lets help peer tube be more succesful” Just as we are here rather than trying to make a law to get reddit to open up their API for free.
I don’t like youtube. But I don’t think it’s fair or viable to mandate them allow their content for free without ads. That’s a bit like mandating hotels give rooms for free. Hosting videos costs a non zero amount of money. Google intends to make more money from advertisements then they spend on hosting videos.
Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right.
You know what is a right? Your property right to control the operation of your computer. Google is, as we speak, trying to violate that right by colonizing it with DRM and subverting your property to serve their own ends instead of yours.
Google has the right to serve a 403 error to anybody who refuses to pay, but they do not have the right to usurp control of people’s property to forcibly display ads. And make no mistake, it’s very much the latter that they (and all the other companies) are trying to do, as evidenced by things like this.
Do you “fathom” it now? How much clearer do I need to make it?
I’m missing here. This isn’t the sony rootkit to my knowledge. Right now we’re talking about youtube itself detecting it’s ads aren’t being shown and throwing up a page blocking the rest.
“Evidenced by” a non google service putting ads in it’s premium service? Don’t get me wrong it’s bullshit, but again a reason to not use spotify.
This message is displayed in the browser because Google asked your browser to do it, and your browser got the message and put it there.
When displaying ads, the end user experience is 100% client-side. You are using your screen and speakers to observe it. You can turn off your speakers and screen if you want, which will effectively “block” the ad.
But that is silly. Not only do you own your screen and speakers, but you have control of what you’re browser is doing, too (if you use a respectable browser). When HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and other content is downloaded, just that happened: file downloads. After it has been downloaded, your browser then consumes it.
When it is consumed, a lot happens, but ultimately, the code in the browser displays content. Your (respectable) browser does all of this, and will change the look depending on local fonts, accessibility options, etc. With an ad block add-on, it will also remove these ads.
However, when ads are removed, the DOM is mutated with deleted or replaced content. It is possible for a website to then write ad block detection scripts to see if the ad contents have been removed or not. There are many ways to do this, and this screenshot is the result of one way of doing it.
However, enter the cat-and-mouse-chase of ad block block blocks. You can block your ads, then block the ad block block like this screenshot. These types of ad block rules are less common, but many public ones are available. Check the uBlock Origin lists in the setting page. By default, only about a third of the lists are enabled, and these extra blocks are in there.
Another avenue of determining that ads were not loaded is for the server to inspect if client-side (you) requests were made to fetch the ads. Even if this is in place, the server cannot determine if you have actually watched the ad or not. It could try to do more client-side attempts at validating that you somehow displayed it, but again, that’s client-side.
Imagine if you were sent a letter and a pamphlet in the mail. Imagine if the letter said that you could mail them back for a free sample of their product, but only if you read the pamphlet. They would have to trust that you read it, because you are reading your mail in the privacy of your own home. However, you could opt to toss the pamphlet (like an ad blocker) and never read it. It’s your mail, your home, and your choice.
deleted by creator
The worst case scenario is that they only serve video to logged-in users, require accounts to be verified with government-issued ID, and enforce the whole thing with the web browser DRM they just proposed.
Make no mistake: this is a war on the public’s property rights and their right not to have ads inflicted on them Clockwork Orange-style. It can get a lot worse than you think, and will unless we force the government to stop them legislatively.
Honestly I can’t fathom this concept. Youtube isn’t a right. It’s an optional service. Why aren’t we all up in arms about the 5,000 porn sites that have paywalled their services for years? IMO the response to “youtube won’t let users use the site without ads” should be “lets help peer tube be more succesful” Just as we are here rather than trying to make a law to get reddit to open up their API for free.
I don’t like youtube. But I don’t think it’s fair or viable to mandate them allow their content for free without ads. That’s a bit like mandating hotels give rooms for free. Hosting videos costs a non zero amount of money. Google intends to make more money from advertisements then they spend on hosting videos.
You know what is a right? Your property right to control the operation of your computer. Google is, as we speak, trying to violate that right by colonizing it with DRM and subverting your property to serve their own ends instead of yours.
Google has the right to serve a 403 error to anybody who refuses to pay, but they do not have the right to usurp control of people’s property to forcibly display ads. And make no mistake, it’s very much the latter that they (and all the other companies) are trying to do, as evidenced by things like this.
Do you “fathom” it now? How much clearer do I need to make it?
I’m missing here. This isn’t the sony rootkit to my knowledge. Right now we’re talking about youtube itself detecting it’s ads aren’t being shown and throwing up a page blocking the rest.
“Evidenced by” a non google service putting ads in it’s premium service? Don’t get me wrong it’s bullshit, but again a reason to not use spotify.
Really well explained. Thanks