this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
539 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
465 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A2PKXG@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Honestly, I've always been surprised as to why YouTube even tolerates adblockers. It's basically a no-brainer for them to bake ads into the stream and disable skipping

[–] spoonful@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Because it's impossible to block adblocking. The server can't know whether the client plays the video. The best they could do is have you wait the ad-time even if the ad is blocked but that would just mess with their analytics - they want to be sure the ad is being watched.

The only reason adblock blocking works for smaller websites is because adblockers need to catch up with each implementation. People will easily catch up with Youtube as there are thousands of people working on Youtube programming.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I think the commenters intention was that YouTube could stream you the video with embedded ads. They would have to stream the content though and skipping ahead would have to be guarded serverside by some clever checks on if you received (and therefore likely seen) the section of the video with the ads.

What probably speaks against this is that it would significantly increase their costs, since they couldn't cache as easily anymore and always need "clever" services/servers along the way. A dumb CDN wouldn't cut it anymore.

I fear it's still just a question of when it's either cheap enough for Google to do it or when the expected returns are high enough to offset the increased costs.

[–] goose@ohai.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

> some clever checks on if you received (and therefore likely seen) the section of the video with the ads

Adblock would just evolve to politely answer "yes" when asked if the content had been received and played.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The server knows how long the ad was. It wouldn't ask the client, it would simply "wait".

[–] goose@ohai.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a description of this:

> The best they could do is have you wait the ad-time even if the ad is blocked but that would just mess with their analytics - they want to be sure the ad is being watched.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I was more answering to the last part

People will easily catch up with Youtube as there are thousands of people working on Youtube programming.

You can't circumvent something clientside that is done on the server. When I grab a stream from Twitch, the first 10 seconds or so are always a "placeholder" image instead of the stream. There is nothing I can do while watching. I can of course remove it later, but not while watching.

I am not saying that Youtube has any chance of forcing you to watch ads. But there are technical means to prevent you from skipping ads as if they were never there. The question is simply when this becomes feasible to do. At the moment it's apparently not feasible. But this could change.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)