Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Reportedly Bypassing Ad Blockers On Google Chrome

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-this dept.

An anonymous reader writes: YouTube users have lit up twitter today, angry about an apparent change of policy by Google, which now seems to be showing ads in front of videos on YouTube even when using Adblock. Neowin reports: "Google's workaround seems to be applicable to all similar extensions and isn't exclusive to just AdBlock Plus. The company has not stopped at just skirting the extension, however. Users with AdBlock enabled will now have to see full-length video ads with no option to skip them half-way through, a feature YouTube has offered for a very long time. The only way to get the option back is to disable AdBlock, or to whitelist YouTube."

49 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Back to Firefox by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, that's how you kill your own browser off, Google.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Back to Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was obvious to me, from the beginning, that the purpose of Chrome is to bypass adblocker technology. It was not a coincidence that Chrome was announced not long after adblocking on Firefox really began to block out nearly everything.

    2. Re:Back to Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chrome was the herpes of browsers anyways. Good riddance.

      Firefox is getting shady also, and loves injecting ads into my tabs until I unchecked "show suggested sites" under new tab controls.

    3. Re:Back to Firefox by E-Rock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We see Google in so many places that most people don't know that (financially) they're an ad company. All of the other businesses feed back into their money making line of business.

    4. Re:Back to Firefox by mindmaster064 · · Score: 2

      Actually, if they are circumventing anything they're hacking your machine are arguable breaking the law. Installing an ad blocker certainly makes it clear what the machine owners intent is. :) I hope they get sued to hell and back.

    5. Re: Back to Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chrome's extension capability is not as powerful as with Firefox. That is why the NoScript guys never developed their plugin for Chrome. In Firefox, you can pretty much completely change the browser into something else entirely with a plugin. Chrome, in comparison, is quite limited.

    6. Re:Back to Firefox by jargonburn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doubtful. Pretty sure Google updating their product and changing functionality (the ability to block ads isn't an advertised feature :P) doesn't violate any laws. Not only that, but:

      A) You aren't forced to use their browser, at least, not by Google
      B) You presumably agreed to Google's terms and conditions / EULA when you installed/used Chrome
      C) The product is provided free of charge and you didn't pay Google a single cent for it.

    7. Re:Back to Firefox by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I'm not going to let a giant multinational company dictate how I use my browser.

      I'm going back to Safari.

    8. Re:Back to Firefox by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      Part of the install process for Chrome is you agree that Google gets everything and you get nothing.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:Back to Firefox by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      Seamonkey is pretty good, like FF back in the 3.x days, but it was suffering for a months-delayed release (partly due to a bunch of FF security crap hitting in a short time) that finally dropped this week. And they're still a few Gecko versions behind FF. It's good to have auto-fill passwords working again.

      Seamonkey is OK, but development is a little sketchy. I switched to Palemoon almost a year ago and Mozilla can go fuck themselves. It's not just a rebranded Firefox, it's a fork that retains most of what made Firefox popular in the first place.

    10. Re:Back to Firefox by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fix the fucked up legal interpretation that allows that kind of a so-called "agreement" to be considered enforceable. It is blatantly unbalanced and as such should be null and void under contract law. It is also not reasonable to expect the unempowered party to laboriously read and digest all the terms.

      Everyone who was ever given an employee agreement to sign which contained a provision that you give up your clear rights to work in competition, even when fired or laid off involuntarily: you did mark it with an initialed note taking exception to that particular part, right? And you informed the employer that you were doing so, and were hired anyway.

    11. Re: Back to Firefox by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Not according to the developer of NoScript. In fact, he says they are involving him to make sure extensions which alter native behavior remain possible.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re: Back to Firefox by reve_etrange · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is false. The developer of NoScript says that they are working with him to make sure extensions may still alter native behavior.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    13. Re:Back to Firefox by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed. Giorgio Maone, the developer of NoScript, says everything is OK.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    14. Re: Back to Firefox by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not according to the developer of NoScript. In fact, he says they are involving him to make sure extensions which alter native behavior remain possible.

      Yes, they are working with some of the bigger developers but they are removing the core functionality that made FF powerful. New addons won't be able to "work with mozilla" only those who already have influence get that treatment.

    15. Re: Back to Firefox by narcc · · Score: 2

      That's not even a little bit true.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    16. Re:Back to Firefox by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, 'about:config' and set 'javascript.enabled' to 'false' is too difficult?

    17. Re:Back to Firefox by trawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, 'about:config' and set 'javascript.enabled' to 'false' is too difficult?

      Possibly the bit where most of the websites in the world stop working

    18. Re:Back to Firefox by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You forget that early versions of Chrome didn't support ad-blocking. There was a bug report asking for necessary features to be added to the extension API (the ability to filter URLs and the DOM before network requests were made) and Google obliged. They actually did extra work to support ad-blocking.

      If you read some comments below you can see that this was just an unintentional thing, only affecting the YouTube app.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Or don't use Chrome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just switch to another browser.

    1. Re:Or don't use Chrome. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly I find Chrome to run much faster than FF and Chrome doesn't keep adding useless buttons and features every week. I'm still waiting for FF to implement multi process and multi thread support.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  3. Chrome is an advertising platform, nothing more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome is an advertising platform, nothing more. Expect similar (and more invasive) behavior if you buy Google's new wifi router. People seem to conveniently forget that Google is the world's biggest advertising company. Their sole reason to exist is to fuck you coming and going, by showing you ads on the front end, then compiling every bit of data they can about you on the back end and selling it around. Google is the pimp and you are the whore.

    I for one will not use a browser made by an advertising company.

  4. begun by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    the ad wars have

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:begun by vandelais · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will!

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
  5. LOL by SuperDre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, I don't like the ads myself, but I don't blame youtube for trying to circumvent the adblockers, it's their right to do so..

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when does visiting a site give the site-owner any rights at all? Jesus Christ, the sense of entitlement of some people!

    2. Re:LOL by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I don't like the ads myself, but I don't blame youtube for trying to circumvent the adblockers, it's their right to do so..

      You are absolutely right. Youtube can do what they want. And so can I. One of the great things about Youtube is that I can live without it and Google can go fuck themselves.

    3. Re:LOL by ewibble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may be true and as a site they can do what they want. What is wrong is using there position as the producer of Chrome to do it. That is why no company should get to much control.

    4. Re:LOL by Reaperducer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their site, their rules. Don't like it? Go start your own Tube.

      Since when does opening a browser window give a site-visitor any rights to content for free? Jesus Christ, the sense of entitlement of some people!

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    5. Re:LOL by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as they're not damaging the browser (app or person), they have as much right to deploy anti-ad blocking (or utterly shitty design) as you do to employ ad blocking. And no, their being successful at it is not damaging to the user. Perhaps you are under the mistaken belief that the site is there to benefit you instead of them.

    6. Re: LOL by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

      The majority of content on YOUTUBE comes from people uploading their cat videos. Youtube actually doesn't make anything. As soon as they piss off enough users their site disappears. There are plenty of better sites out there, so they better be careful.

    7. Re:LOL by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not how the web works. The site owner can offer to send you some HTML, CSS and other data. Beyond that they have no control over what you do with it. Don't want to display part of what they send you? That's fine, they don't have any right to control your browser.

      If they don't want you to have their content, take it off the public web.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. That's only on chrome I believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what they've done here what Internet Explorer and mozilla always wanted. Now everyone will move away from Chrome. You cant fight the users cause you will lose. You have to win somehow by giving them what they want and this is not it. I've always used Internet Explorer so that's not a problem for me. I still don't see ads at all.

    Another stupid idea they might go with is blocking the others from seeing the video all together if we don't disable the adblock. That's what dailymotion and vimeo are hoping for. Then users will eventually move away and youtube will be a thing of the past. watch it go.

  7. Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by watermark · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTFA, this change only affects the YouTube "app" installed in Chrome. Uninstall the app and you're golden.

    1. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which means it's probably not even intentional.

    2. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      But I want to be angry. I want to see blood! Fuck you and your rationality.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by wimconradie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, I also just read that. Very misleading article and subject. The last paragraph says it only affects YouTube "app", so I feel it is a purposefully abuse of a catchy subject. At the uploader: Please change the subject!

    4. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      FTFA, this change only affects the YouTube "app" installed in Chrome. Uninstall the app and you're golden.

      WTF?

      Why do you need a Youtube app?

    5. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by fnj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      WTF?

      Why do you need a Youtube app?

      Somebody answer this. I want to know what the fuck is the point of this shitty "app". Are we talking about android crap, or a proper computer?

    6. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

      Chrome "apps" are essentially just bookmarks, which sometimes interact with a specialized extension. I guess the idea is continuity with ChromeOS or something.

      As to why you'd need it, I have no answer.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    7. Re:Only affects "Youtube app" in chrome by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      It makes YouTube load faster by caching much of the HTML, CSS and images locally, and by having some of the Javascript pre-compiled. That's all Chrome apps are, just local caches for web sites that make them open faster.

      The extension API that is used by AdBlock doesn't allow extensions to screw with stuff cached in apps, for security reasons. Recently Google moved some of the advertising code from the YouTube site into the app, where it can't be blocked. So now AdBlock just removes the "skip advert" button, but not the ad delivery Javascript code itself because that bit is in the app.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. My YouTube ad revenue went up by lhaeh · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the twitter posts in the linked article, it seems this started on the 5th. My most recent ad revenue data from YouTube is for that day, I made $11.68, normally I make $5-$8 per day. I've been seeing some spikes recently, but I assumed that was from heavy back to school advertising, maybe it could have been from this.

    Any other tubers out there notice something like this?

  9. Hosts file by plasm4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been copying and pasting this into my hosts file every couple months on top of using ad block. I haven't seen adverts in a long time. http://someonewhocares.org/hos...

  10. Re: Chrome is an advertising platform, nothing mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People viewing the internet as "a capitalistic system" is what got us into this mess in the first place.

  11. Re:Firefox haters repent by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And if they want to put the tabs on top

    I have them on the left (Tree Style Tabs). They also load and unload themselves from memory (BarTab), block ads (uBlock origin), and run only desired scripts (NoScript).

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  12. Re:Uninstall the Chrome YouTube app by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

    An AC said it: It writes www.youtube.com in the address bar so you don't have to. I think it used to be able to download some videos, but not anymore.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  13. Re:Are you selling another browserbook? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Android has another problem: even if you have the screen space for four phone-sized apps, apps have to explicitly opt in to running unmaximized, and few do.

  14. Re:then why not do so? This is the Youtube app, no by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

    If the purpose of Chrome is to get rid of ad blockers, why haven't they gotten rid of any ad blockers in Chrome? One specific ad blocker isn't 100% effective with the Youtube app. Few people even use the Youtube app. This doesn't have anything to do with the browser, you know.

    Easy - they need the research. If you're wanting to work around ad blockers, you need to figure out how they work, so having them in your catalog is a way to do that. Plus, if you don't have ad blockers, people will quickly realize it.

    And the "Skip Ad" thing is still present - it's just Google rigged it so that the ad blocker sees *that* as the ad! In other words, the "Skip Ad" link is made to appear as an ad, so your ad blocker will dutifully block it.

    It's happened a few times before - many sites that go and show historical ads often put the content up as "ads". Which often triggers ad blockers, and you can easily tell because they always put up comments as "I can't see the ads!".

  15. Re:Uninstall the Chrome YouTube app by Syntastic · · Score: 2

    Most Chrome Apps contain html/css/js so when you visit a page you don't have to download these. It's a pre-packaged website. You'll only need to download dynamic content.