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."

21 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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 :.
  2. 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.

  3. 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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?

  6. 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!

  7. 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.

  8. 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."
  9. 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