YouTube Shows Adblock Plus Users an Error Message Instead of Ads

Time shifting by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you extrapolate the arms race out, I can see victory being that you time-shift the video while the ad-blocker lets the ad play to /dev/null.

They can't force me to watch the ads, because they can't force me to watch their content. I would give up their content before watching ads, the same way as I don't watch teevee with ads. But as long as they want it to be freely available, they can only temporarily frustrate the ad blockers.

Re:Time shifting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:37 · Score: 0

People say that about web ad blocking too: the end-game is having to load the ads from the server but not display them. (Even that is questionable, if they use javascript to verify the display of the ads and refuse to deliver the content unless that is verified).
The problem is that this requires loading the ads, so incurs all the tracking and privacy problems those ads foist.
Re:Time shifting by slashping · 2016-03-13 07:47 · Score: 3, Informative

Turn down the volume, switch to another tab for a minute, return to first tab and rewind to start of real video. Or just stop watching.
Re:Time shifting by Firethorn · 2016-03-13 07:56 · Score: 1

Sites that are that anal about you *seeing* the ads will often want to show you an ad AGAIN if you rewind.
I also loved the last presidential election - Up here in Alaska one of our senate seats was up for election. The major parties spent something like $120 per registered voter on advertising. Democrat incumbent vs Republican challenger. If you had an IP from AK, everything was about the election of that seat.
Hell, I now have a greasemonkey script to remove the most annoying sites from search results.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Time shifting by hjf · 2016-03-13 07:57 · Score: 1

And then sit back and watch a video... until BAM, a banner pops up, which you have to close manually. Youtube is becoming TV very quick. It's just a matter of time until they start overlaying countdowns: "NEW SEASON IN 49 days 23:33:42..."
Re:Time shifting by slashping · 2016-03-13 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Sites that are that anal about you *seeing* the ads will often want to show you an ad AGAIN if you rewind.
In that case, the last part of my comment applies: just stop watching. There's plenty of other stuff to do.
Re:Time shifting by Opportunist · 2016-03-13 08:32 · Score: 1

Until you find a way to offload that ad-loading and -displaying to a dump server that hands you the return code to display the actual content back.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Time shifting by Opportunist · 2016-03-13 08:33 · Score: 1

Then they will go the way of the TV and the next video provider in line gets my eyes.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Time shifting by ArchieBunker · 2016-03-13 09:11 · Score: 1

Just wait until ads are spliced into video stream itself. No way to block that other than some pattern recognition scheme.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Time shifting by Threni · 2016-03-13 09:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, but there's also a lot of great stuff on youtube that exists nowhere else or is not free elsewhere. Sometimes it's worth the pain of an ad...and I hate ads! I'd rather look at an error message for a few seconds than an ad, if that's the choice.
Re:Time shifting by Swave+An+deBwoner · 2016-03-13 11:28 · Score: 1

Doesn't Hulu already do that? (Splicing ads into the video stream)
Re:Time shifting by rasmusbr · 2016-03-13 11:33 · Score: 1

Just wait until ads are spliced into video stream itself. No way to block that other than some pattern recognition scheme.
Yeah, I believe there are readily available algorithms. The tagging would be easy to crowdsource, a button in the browser that the user could click when they see an ad.
If the ad industry teams up with the major OS and hardware companies and come up with some crap that prevents user space software from accessing streaming video data directly, you could still use the microphone on your computer and run an algorithm on the audio.
Re:Time shifting by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 11:54 · Score: 1

the end-game is having to load the ads from the server but not display them.
That is what I said, yes. LOL
But you can't "verify display" you can only verify time lapse, that why the endgame is time-shifting; the blocker waits until the server thinks the ad "displayed" and then records the content; user comes back and just watches content.
Re:Time shifting by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 11:57 · Score: 1

A lot of the non-fiction content that I use youtube for would simply move to other sites.
Youtube is great for the do-it-yourselfer, but these are also people who ad-block. If they force me out, a lot of the content providers I use will also be moving.
Re:Time shifting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 12:39 · Score: 0

The problem AC was pointing out is that that has many of the problems of actually displaying the ad. Not all of them, but still some. Thus, it cannot be considered a fully acceptable solution.
Re:Time shifting by rtb61 · 2016-03-13 12:53 · Score: 1

I can tolerate ads as long as they align with the content, are somewhat interesting, do not lie or attempt to create false associations, informative, not repeated again and again and again. You tube is made bad enough by not being able to block certain uploaders and having them flood any searches or the you tube home screens with their shit, that is super fucking annoying. I wonder where more targeted advertisements might be possible, not targeted you but targeting them with ie dislike M$ simply block all M$ ads, done and finished.
At times it feels like ads slide by one after another no problem and then you get a shit ad for a company you dislike and then all the ads start pissing you off, that jarring invasion of your space by someone you hate feeds your dislike for all similar interactions. So content jarring, and as an audio video experience loud and annoying, really does a lot of damage to many products.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Time shifting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 13:42 · Score: 0

I take the third route... I have a YT Red subscription. This isn't a 100% solution, as it may not be available everywhere, nor obtainable for people... but I prefer the old subscription model of paying directly for the content, and being the customer... not being a viewer and the ad companies the customer.
Ultimately, the best alternative to ads would be a clearinghouse. More views, more cash a site gets. This could be a private party that does this, or it can be a government which funds content in its borders.
Re:Time shifting by Gavagai80 · 2016-03-13 14:18 · Score: 1

They don't want to splice the ads into the video stream, because that makes their advertising less targeted and their tracking harder.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Time shifting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 15:22 · Score: 0

Youtube is particularly devious on this score. They'll show ads, but only sometimes. So you can watch, say, three videos in a row without any ads, and then you click on the fourth one and bingo - you get an ad.
If you click on the same link again, you might get no ad.
So in order to avoid the ads entirely, you have to eschew a lot of apparently ad-free content as well.
Another particularly evil trick they've developed on their mobile platform is to insert links to ads at the top of your search results, appearing about 1.5 seconds after the list of actual search results. So if you were trying to tap the top result - guess what you just clicked on instead?
TL;DR: Youtube are bastards.
Re:Time shifting by mhotchin · 2016-03-13 15:39 · Score: 1

No reason (other than horsepower) why they can't splice on the fly with an ad just as targeted as whatever they show at the start.
Re:Time shifting by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-13 23:47 · Score: 1

No need to time-shift, that's now how YouTube ads work. The ads are stored on different servers to the main content, so it's easy to filter them by simply denying access to those hosts. You can do it at the router level to clean up your smart TV and wifi device's YouTube apps.
The issue here is that the YouTube playback code now shows an error when it can't access those servers. Previously it would just give up and play the content after a few seconds (they kept the timeout short to improve the user experience). If you hit F5 it does actually play the video still.
This could be fixed by either modifying the YouTube code (it's only Javascript) or by added a refresh.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Time shifting by Megane · 2016-03-14 00:08 · Score: 1

Interstitials in the main stream is probably the endgame of this. Then you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The problem is that it's hard to do that in a sane way over a live stream of content that has no natural breaks.
For what it's worth, Ustream's interstitial ads via their Flash player (they still won't offer me an HTML5 player with the current version of Seamonkey, which uses the same rendering engine as Firefox and is usually the current FF version of Gecko) are done via a separate .swf served from an ads-only domain. Block that domain and even the ad warning doesn't show.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Time shifting by Grishnakh · 2016-03-14 04:31 · Score: 1

Even that is questionable, if they use javascript to verify the display of the ads and refuse to deliver the content unless that is verified
It'd be pretty trivial to intercept the JS and alter it to send back the code that the ads were viewed even though they weren't.
Re:Time shifting by Grishnakh · 2016-03-14 04:38 · Score: 1

If the ad industry teams up with the major OS and hardware companies and come up with some crap that prevents user space software from accessing streaming video data directly
This is what I'd like to see personally: the ad companies need to team up with Microsoft to make it technically nearly impossible to block ads (of all types) on Windows machines. MS is basically reinventing itself as an advertising/marketing company anyway, so this would be a great fit for them.
It'll be fun listening to Windows users whine and complain about ads while I'm happily blocking them on my Linux box.
Re:Time shifting by madhi19205 · 2016-03-14 04:57 · Score: 1

That when you turn on No-Script...
Re:Time shifting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 07:30 · Score: 0

Ustream's interstitial ads via their Flash player (they still won't offer me an HTML5 player with the current version of Seamonkey, which uses the same rendering engine as Firefox and is usually the current FF version of Gecko)
HTML5! Standards-based! Only-works-in-a-tiny-handful-of-specifically-preapproved-browsers!
Re:Time shifting by Aighearach · 2016-03-14 09:53 · Score: 1

No need to...
You missed my point, that's why you didn't see it. :(
It is safer to assume I understood all the technical details, and still made my comment. ;)
Re:Time shifting by Aighearach · 2016-03-14 09:56 · Score: 1

Interstitials in the main stream is probably the endgame of this.
That's a middle-game, because they lose market share and the endgame happens somewhere else for those users. ;)
My assessment of the "endgame" presumes that the major players will continue to be the ones that value market share the most.
Re:Time shifting by Rakarra · 2016-03-14 11:14 · Score: 1

These are "evil tricks?" It's called balancing the content with the ads. You watch a bunch of tiny clips, you should see fewer ads per clip. I don't know how this is supposed to be "devious." You don't see an ad every time because you haven't racked up enough viewing time to require another.
Re:Time shifting by Rakarra · 2016-03-14 11:15 · Score: 1

Ustream's interstitial ads via their Flash player (they still won't offer me an HTML5 player with the current version of Seamonkey, which uses the same rendering engine as Firefox and is usually the current FF version of Gecko)
HTML5! Standards-based! Only-works-in-a-tiny-handful-of-specifically-preapproved-browsers!
Best of all, MUCH harder to block!

Not Just the Weird Message by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:21 · Score: 1

It's not just the weird message that's the problem. In the background of the error screen is the 'snow' that we used to see on an analog TV between stations and I also see a hum bar slowly moving up or down. Where the hell is THAT coming from?

Re:Not Just the Weird Message by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:43 · Score: 0

It's part of YouTube's normal error when the video won't load for some reason.

Sounds like social engineering by advertisers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:23 · Score: 0

If someone was clogging my revenue stream, I would want to clog theirs. This is an advertisement against Adblock. I bet it works some in that people uninstall it to watch their videos thinking adblock messed with youtube.

Re:Sounds like social engineering by advertisers by bjwest · 2016-03-13 13:00 · Score: 1

Run all the adds you want, but the second you probe my system, you cross the line. I have no interest in the crap you're peddling, and have every right to block your malware infested, tracking inserting and bandwidth stealing advertisements .

--

--- Keep the choice with the user..

Works for me by penguinoid · 2016-03-13 07:24 · Score: 2

I didn't see any ads. I have adblocker with easylist and an anti-adblocker blocker list.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:Works for me by slashping · 2016-03-13 07:45 · Score: 2

I don't see any ads either, just using Chrome with ABP in default mode.
Re:Works for me by spikesahead · 2016-03-13 12:38 · Score: 1

I didn't see any ads either, I pay for youtube red as part of my indispensable google music account.

--
bend like the reed
Re:Works for me by Megane · 2016-03-14 00:21 · Score: 1

I strictly use a custom blocking list with "allow ads that are nice enough bribe us" disabled. And I will just as happily block a single .js file as I will entire domains that clearly have no other purpose in life than to serve ads or track people. (And also stuff like that stupid Sharethis or whatever has roll-over pop-ups for dozens of social media sites, since it's something I would never use and it's annoying too.) Whenever I start with a new computer, one of the first places I go is Drudge Report, because that uses 20 or so of the worst offenders that I can quickly block right away.
If I'm really serious about blocking something at the HTML element level, I may add custom CSS rules to my web browser for a site (see sig for example), but that's usually done to override bad color and contrast choices (my view of Hackaday has black text on a gray background).

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Works for me by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-14 00:40 · Score: 1

I had a few error messages on YouTube with Chrome and uBlock. Hit F5 and the video plays. I have Easylist and the anti-ad-block list enabled, as well as a load of other stuff. Might only be affecting certain regions or a certain percentage of users.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Works for me by houghi · 2016-03-14 01:34 · Score: 1

The summery talked about 'some' people that it is happening to. I can imagine google trying it out on a few servers to see what happens and what the results are. This before they launch it worldwide.
Things they might be interested in, but not limited to:
Are people turning off adblock
Are people still watching the content
Are people coming back
Are people looking elsewhere
Are people deblocking YouTube, while they keep blocking e.g. DoubleClick.com
Remember that they have all this data to figure out how they can get more money.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Works for me by nctritech · 2016-03-14 01:43 · Score: 1

I use NoScript and ABP with EasyList + Adblock Warning Removal List and "Acceptable Ads" disabled. If you block scripts from googleadservices.com but turn off ABP on youtube.com, you'll just get the home page banner ad and the square sidebar ad but no video ads or overlay banners. In the worst case, I have a fancy Greasemonkey script that gives me direct access to the video streams so if they get cocky I can just skip the ads by clicking directly through to the underlying MP4.

Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Snotnose · 2016-03-13 07:24 · Score: 2

Hmm, ads possibly serving malware, or cat vidz. decisions decisions.

Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by garcia · 2016-03-13 07:41 · Score: 4, Informative

uBlock Origin is still working just fine. I suggest you move away from ABP immediately and shift over to something which hasn't, yet, been corrupted by the industry.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:49 · Score: 0

I am using that too. That explains the errors I have got for the past week.
So how long until the lists are updated *again*....
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:49 · Score: 0

Same here, UBlock Origin on Chrome
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by hjf · 2016-03-13 07:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Ublock Origin on Firefox. I get the error message.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by i.r.id10t · 2016-03-13 08:44 · Score: 1

No errors for me, but I'm blocking based on DNS info using the list maintained at http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Artemis3 · 2016-03-13 09:34 · Score: 1

I get that error sometimes, always blame it on youtube and just hit reload when it happens.
There is anti-antiadblocking, but it is not yet necessary for youtube.

--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by LinuxIsGarbage · 2016-03-13 10:03 · Score: 1

uBlock Origin is still working just fine. I suggest you move away from ABP immediately and shift over to something which hasn't, yet, been corrupted by the industry.
More than that, uBlock bases itself around higher performance than ABP. That was the reason I switched.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 10:34 · Score: 1

"In our tests, the problem would only occur on Chrome with Adblock Plus, while Firefox with the extension installed worked just fine"
Is it still corruption if you're using their browser?
Btw it takes 16Gb+ of RAM to build/link a debug copy of webkit, good luck with finding any adblocker-tampering code.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 12:20 · Score: 0

No it is not. I have watched about 10 vids today using ublock origin. It is hit or miss which ones block out and which ones dont.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 12:58 · Score: 2

Funny story... I wandered over to youtube to check if I get the error (didn't get it; ublock origin) and I ended up watching some cat furry videos.
Malware, of course... actually, I'd be impressed if they got some past all my levels of protection.
Malware in ads isn't youtube video ads, it is other stuff. These are simply obnoxious video content that I refuse to consume, not random code that runs on your computer.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by dyslexicbunny · 2016-03-13 13:22 · Score: 1

Same.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Cederic · 2016-03-13 19:56 · Score: 1

I use uBlock Origin and have been getting that error message for a few months.
I just hit F5 and the video almost always starts to play for me.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by hjf · 2016-03-13 23:07 · Score: 1

I'm getting this error consistently today in most, if not all, of the videos I tried to watch. It goes away after 10 seconds or so, by itself, if you leave the page open.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-14 00:47 · Score: 1

I ended up watching some cat furry videos.
You... You what? ;-)
Anyway, YouTube video ads are a bit different to ads on other sites. They play before the video. The channel owner (or channel hijacker if they have been copyright-jacked) can decide how long they last and if they are skippable. They are served from Google/YouTube's own servers and are just normal videos like any other on the site, so apart from blowing up your speakers with a nice square wave or giving the user an epileptic fit there isn't much scope for malicious behaviour.
Getting rid of them is easy, just block the following hosts:
ads.youtube.com
s0.2mdn.net
s1.2mdn.net
googleads.g.doubleclick.net
files.adform.net
ad.doubleclick.net
secure-ds.serving-sys.com
If you do it at the router/DNS cache level you can stop your smart TV and wifi connected devices from display ads too. Until just recently when those servers were unreachable the real video would just play, but now it looks like they are throwing up error messages for some people.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Nunya666 · 2016-03-14 01:56 · Score: 1

No errors for me, but I'm blocking based on DNS info using the list maintained at http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/
Same here. I have a shell script that updates my hosts file daily.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Nunya666 · 2016-03-14 02:00 · Score: 1

uBlock Origin is still working just fine. I suggest you move away from ABP immediately and shift over to something which hasn't, yet, been corrupted by the industry.
More than that, uBlock bases itself around higher performance than ABP. That was the reason I switched.
I tried uBlock last year because of the performance claims, but I didn't like the UI for several reasons:

1) I don't see a white list
2) I can't see a list of what is being blocked
3) It doesn't block Facebook and Google+ buttons/tracking
4) I don't care how much blocking it does "behind the scenes." If it doesn't show me what it's blocking, then I assume that it's not doing enough. Merely displaying a "blocked" number in the icon is not enough.

Was I missing something in the settings?
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 03:01 · Score: 0

Praise APK!
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Grishnakh · 2016-03-14 04:50 · Score: 1

For #3, I believe you are. Go to the filter lists, and there should be another list you can enable under "Social Media" which blocks FB/G+ buttons and tracking. I believe it's not enabled by default because for people who use FB a lot it can have undesirable side effects.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Aighearach · 2016-03-14 06:57 · Score: 1

You... You what? ;-)
There is just something about Cat Planet Cuties. Whenever they start eating, the cat people get so exited and happy, I just can't help feeling all the warm fuzzies. And I don't even eat pork, which is what the food always is. Also, I like they way they mix dealing with women's issues of body ideals and self confidence at the same time as showing off lots of boobs in a juvenile way. I can't decide if I should feel sorry for the characters with small boobs who are shocked and feel overlooked, or the ones with gigantic boobs who are being dismissed and scolded just for other people staring at them. There is very good balance there. And the boy really doesn't care, sure his eyes pop out and he can't stop staring but he also just wants everybody to get over it, to accept their bodies and stop talking about boobs.
I blame the Thundercats, especially Cheetara.
As for youtube, the channel owner doesn't get to choose what ads you see, only things like how long they play; but they do have intended control over the content that follows, so there is no reason to speculate about malicious audio. They can rickroll you as soon as you risk consuming their content. I may click some weird stuff, but I also don't click very many things. They promise naked catpeople, but they might be trying to sell horny goat weed extract.
Smart TV is great because it means my wife can call her mom on skype, and her mom can answer with the remote control. That is more teachable than the scary computer stuff. But I wouldn't let one in my home, blocking or not. If I wanted that crap on a different screen... I'd use a thin client. That is why the X Windowing System has network support, after all. Wayland is for Smart TV owners. They used to just have boob tubes, now they have morphed into Smart Boobs.
Re:Whelp, no more YouTube for me by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 08:41 · Score: 0

I have uBlock Origin and Disconnect, working fine in FF45 with the addon that lets me select the flash player, and running over a VPN through my cheap VPS in a California data center.
This "error" seems trivial to fix anyway. It just sounds like the wrong site or script is being blocked.

Who cares... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:31 · Score: 0

If you have "Element hidin helper for Ad block Plus"- you have no trouble what's forever... Just select element that causes problem or even parent element of it, and job is done wonderfully...

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:32 · Score: 0

mod parent up

Bad move... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:40 · Score: 0

If that error message is the result of trying to block ad-blockers then is a bad move. Personally if I see that error message I would think "in what a shitty google server is this video hosted on?" or "Stupid G-Youtube" and never suspect of a conflict with the ad-blocker. Plus, after google took over YT it has become more and more bloated, slow and the buffering fails 90% of the time so "Stupid G-Youtube" is the first thing that comes to mind when something goes wrong.

Only a matter of time by 110010001000 · 2016-03-13 07:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is only a matter of time before Google tried to stop adblocking on Youtube. They were just waiting for Youtube to get all the marketshare. Next they will try to crack down on copyright violations. They didn't try too hard while they were trying to get all the marketshare.

Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:03 · Score: 0

They don't care about copyright violations as much as they care about ad revenue. Besides, they already take videos down; as long as they keep to due diligence when it comes to copyrighted stuff, there's no need for a "crackdown".
Re:Only a matter of time by 110010001000 · 2016-03-13 08:24 · Score: 1

They hardly even scratch the surface of copyright violations. Go look for any album on Youtube, they are all there and have been there for years. They just don't care. You are right about ad revenue.
Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:51 · Score: 0

Can you honestly tell me that it's possible for a small team of "Youtube copyright enforcers" to manually search and flag copyright infringements in the whole of Youtube? They'll take down whatever is brought to their attention. If it's not in their attention, they're assuming that there's no problem.
Re:Only a matter of time by shawn2772 · 2016-03-13 09:06 · Score: 5, Informative

They hardly even scratch the surface of copyright violations. Go look for any album on Youtube, they are all there and have been there for years. They just don't care.
Google doesn't care, the copyright owners do. They care a lot, and they make Google handle it. If the copyright owners were unhappy with those albums being there, they would be taken down. But they're okay with it because they have agreements in place, so Google sends the copyright owner a piece of the ad revenue. All of this is automated so you can upload any random music video and odds are very good that it will stay up... but various restrictions will be applied to comply with the agreements.
For example, I made a tribute video for my mother in law's funeral recently, and used three songs that she loved as the soundtrack. I uploaded it to YouTube to make it easy to share with the extended family, and if I go look at it in my video manager, I note that it is flagged as "not eligible for monetization" and "blocked in some countries". If I click on it to get details, I find that Google has automatically identified the songs in it, and their owners, and applied rules based on agreements with those owners. Specifically, one of the songs in monetized by the copyright owner, which is why I can't make money off of it (not that I care, or that there would be any money to be made) and two others are blocked in Germany because Google doesn't have agreements with the copyright owners in that jurisdiction. Oh, and my video also apparently can't be played on set top boxes, again because Google's licensing agreements don't cover that usage.
So, your perception that all of that music on YouTube is somehow sliding under the radar and that Google will "crack down" in the future is completely wrong. It isn't "under the radar" at all, and Google not only does "crack down" on copyrighted content that may be infringing, but has the cracking thoroughly automated. But, Google has arranged such comprehensive licenses that you don't notice because it seems like everything is there.
Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:57 · Score: 0

Bull. When did YouTube ever NOT have the market share? YouTube owned that market even before Google bought them which is why Google dumped Google Video in favor of YouTube.
Re:Only a matter of time by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 12:06 · Score: 1

Same as everything else, market share can go down just as easily as up. They don't have a monopoly on web servers, so any monopoly they have is a "natural" one that would go away as soon as people like it less.
Geocities had lots of market share, AOL had market share, napster had market share, myspace had market share. I'm still using ICQ, it used to be the #1 instant messenger.
You can't be an internet monopoly unless you tolerate ad-blockers, because if you fight them and succeed, it means those users are mostly somewhere else now.
Re:Only a matter of time by 110010001000 · 2016-03-13 13:29 · Score: 1

NO it isn't possible with a small team. That is the point. They need a BIG TEAM. Why don't they have a big team? They are making billions. You just answered your own question.
Re:Only a matter of time by 110010001000 · 2016-03-13 13:31 · Score: 1

No. There are no agreements when Frozzle1093 uploads a "radiohead" album. There aren't any ads at all on those videos. You just got caught.
Re:Only a matter of time by 110010001000 · 2016-03-13 13:32 · Score: 1

True. I'm not saying it is a good strategy. But they do have a massive mind and market share. Every kid knows "Youtube" at this point.
Re:Only a matter of time by non0score · 2016-03-13 15:28 · Score: 1

What makes you think Radiohead has chosen to monetize? That is also configurable as well.
Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 22:18 · Score: 0

they are all there
No, they are not, not since the ill-conceived YouTube Red.
Re:Only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 22:33 · Score: 0

many of the straight-up video and music uploads that have been around at least a little while (long enough to be noticed by people who care way too much) are likely allowed and added to the revenue sharing scheme youtube has with the music labels
Re:Only a matter of time by shawn2772 · 2016-03-14 04:24 · Score: 1

No. There are no agreements when Frozzle1093 uploads a "radiohead" album. There aren't any ads at all on those videos.
Does Radiohead want there to be ads on those videos? It's their choice; they (or their label, depending on those agreements) set the policy and Google just enforces it. Somehow I think you actually already knew that, else you wouldn't have picked "Radiohead", since they are a rather unique group who takes an unusually light hand with copyright, and has actually switched to self-publishing rather than using a label, in large part to give them more freedom in how they handle such matters.

You just got caught.
Huh?
Re:Only a matter of time by tlhIngan · 2016-03-14 05:01 · Score: 1

True. I'm not saying it is a good strategy. But they do have a massive mind and market share. Every kid knows "Youtube" at this point.
Yeah, but there's little network effect - if another provider popped up and people start using them, converting from YouTube takes little effort - all the embeds and links go to the new site quite trivially.
This is unlike Facebook or eBay where there are significant network effects that cause people to stay - Facebook in having many users which means their friends and family are on it (and thus trying to convince them to move to another site is nigh-impossible). eBay has lots of sellers and buyers, so sellers know they will likely get top dollar, and buyers know they probably will find it all on eBay. That's not to say there aren't alternative social network sites nor auction/marketplace sites, but they suffer from the network effect as well - those other sites are often desolate and with few people, or buyers and sellers are few and far between. And buyers know they only are coming for a deal - they made the effort to come and there are fewer buyers to compete with so lower prices. Seller do it for lower fees, but often complain they aren't getting "eBay prices" and are getting lowballed.
There's nothing that compels users to YouTube since most people probably get to it via deep links and not just browsing it.

Or you could pay for the service. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:43 · Score: 0

In the case of YouTube, they offer a non-ad experience in exchange for you paying a subscription fee.

Are you asking for the service for free here?

Re:Or you could pay for the service. by hjf · 2016-03-13 08:02 · Score: 3, Informative

"YouTube Red is not currently available in Argentina".
If youtube doesn't care about offering their paid service in my country, it means they don't want my money. If they don't want my money, then I won't see their ads either.
Fuck google.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by sumdumass · 2016-03-13 08:02 · Score: 1

No, he is asking to do himself what the service does without buying the service.
You seem to be under the impression that if I use my computer to do the work of removing ads, it is the same as Youtube somehow doing the work. It is not and it is not using youtube's services without buying them either.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by dcollins117 · 2016-03-13 09:40 · Score: 1

youtube-dl does a good job of removing ads, as well as geo and age restrctions. I stopped using youtube when Google took it over because they fucked up commenting. It used to be fun, now it's not. If somebody sends me a link to a youtube video I'll just snatch it with youtube-dl. No ads, no geo resrictions, no age restrictions, no muss, no fuss.
Honestly, how Google could fuck up an existing good service like youtube is beyond my understanding, and yet they still did it.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by Greyfox · 2016-03-13 11:09 · Score: 1

Yeah their bullshit is getting kind of old. We should just all go back to posting videos on some store and forward network like netnews (Ha ha only serious.)

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 12:17 · Score: 2

The service is either free, or it is not. If they want to call it free, and show ads, they have no claim that viewing the ads are required. They can try to make sure they are displayed, but that is all.
People who really don't understand ethics seem to jump right onto the ad bandwagon, I wonder why that is? Maybe they're using their employer's "ethics" instead of having an honest discussion?
If watching the ads was required, then it would be false advertising to call it free. False advertising is something a crook does, it isn't even legal. If you simply go their web domain, and it shows the content, and you click on it, and you haven't had to agree to any contract, then any requirement at all that you try to place on me is unethical. You can try to show me an ad, but you can't require it. It is up to the website owner to either restrict their content to subscribers, or not.
I'm not "asking" for anything. They offer the service freely, so I use it in whatever way I want that is within the law. I'm happy to follow the law and not deface their website, harm their property, etc., but that is it. Those are the only restrictions that I would be bound to, and expecting more is an immoral and unethical attempt to hijack my prerogatives.
Simply "offering" a paid subscription does not prevent their freely available version from being freely available. If they want to lock that down, that is their prerogative; but they'll lose a lot of market share.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by non0score · 2016-03-13 15:31 · Score: 1

YT hasn't released Red in Argentina doesn't mean they don't want to. Do you think they have the resources to simultaneously come to an agreement with all copyright holders at the same time, do all the market research, marketing, and engineering resources? Whining like this just makes you look like an entitled brat.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by hjf · 2016-03-13 23:05 · Score: 1

Youtube red is not all about copyright. It's about offline videos, ad-free experience and "youtube original" series and movies. None of which need any sort of copyright and shit.
And, you know, google has thousands of employees. Many of them in my country, since 2006 (http://www.cuitonline.com/detalle/33709585229/google-argentina-s.r.l.html) so yeah, I guess google *CAN* do all of that at the same time.
As for copyright... COME ON! Google is a den of piracy. It's full of TV series and songs that pay, in most cases, NOTHING to the copyright holders. They kinda, sorta take down these vids from time to time. But have you seen how quick google is to delete copyright video, and how quickly they delete porn? Yeah.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by houghi · 2016-03-14 01:52 · Score: 1

The first time I said "Fuck Google" was when they bought and raped Dejanews.com

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by HideyoshiJP · 2016-03-14 02:13 · Score: 1

It's also not available in Japan. The record companies there generally hate digital due to market dynamics in Japan.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by Grishnakh · 2016-03-14 04:57 · Score: 1

An excellent and cogent post; I would mod you up if I had points.
But to answer this question:
People who really don't understand ethics seem to jump right onto the ad bandwagon, I wonder why that is?
That's because a significant portion of the American populace has turned into corporate apologists, happy to defend the very worst examples of corporate behavior possible.
Re:Or you could pay for the service. by Samhain138 · 2016-03-16 03:23 · Score: 1

YouTube Red isn't being offered in Argentina for the same reason many other services/things aren't being offered in Argentina.
Because it's an absolutely fucked up country that's impossible to do business with/in unless you're an Iranian or Russian politician trying to make extremely dodgy secret deals or try to hire a hitman to make a politician disappear a day before he testifies.
You know how corrupt and problematic (to be gentle) your country is; don't blame it on Google.
You shouldn't blame any company or person for not taking Argentina seriously.
P.S: why don't you use that energy to complain against your own government, for, say, making you ask for an approval to go on vacation and pay 20% tax if you, god forbid, want to use your money outside of Argentina?

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Z00L00K · 2016-03-13 07:53 · Score: 3

Most likely it depends on which block rules that you use, not the AdBlock plug-in itself.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.

Re:uBlock Origin master race by hjf · 2016-03-13 07:54 · Score: 1

Oh shut up. I have Ublock origin and I'm getting this message on Firefox.

Still better than ads by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 07:56 · Score: 1

I'd rather enjoy a few seconds of a silent error message than enduring another stupid ad.

Re:Still better than ads by Mashiki · 2016-03-13 16:03 · Score: 1

It was the 5 minute long unskippable ads that finally forced me to block all ads on youtube about a year ago. So yep, know where you're coming from on that.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:09 · Score: 0

I also have ublock origin on Firefox and I'm not seeing it. Probably has more to do with the rulesets you use than anything else.

How About Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:14 · Score: 0

If I enable AdBlock for Slashdot, all the fancy formatting disappears.

do no evil by Noah+Haders · 2016-03-13 08:22 · Score: 1

that's interesting. i've often gotten that error message, but I assumed it was a browser fail and used a different browser. Can I wait it out and then the add starts? that's a dirty business on goog's part. do no evil!

Re:do no evil by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:53 · Score: 1

What's so evil about notifying that users haven't been watching the ads and that is not supposed to happen? You're supposed to take the ads with the video or avoid Youtube altogether.
Re:do no evil by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:42 · Score: 0

You're not supposed to be such a wimp. It is not illegal to block the ads and watch the video. You're also still allowed to go to the toilet during an ad break on TV, or use the skip button on your PVR.
Re:do no evil by squiggleslash · 2016-03-13 23:11 · Score: 1

That's not what they're doing. They're making it look like you have a problem with your browser/Internet connection/other. The last thing most users are going to think seeing this message is that their ad blocker needs to be turned off.
That said... is it evil? Nah, just stupid.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Well within their rights by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-13 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google is well within their rights to do this. They offer a $10/mo service to go ad-free. There isn't any excuse to block ads on Youtube.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:Well within their rights by ssufficool · 2016-03-13 08:29 · Score: 1

Mod parent up.
I can understand the DVR for TV and services that I pay for. For Youtube, NO. You get it free, you pay the price in a sane amount of ads.
If/when this gets to be adhorible, then get creative with the ad blockers.
Re:Well within their rights by slashping · 2016-03-13 08:35 · Score: 1

That's $40 for a family of 4, just to see some funny cat movies. Sounds like there's plenty of excuse.
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:46 · Score: 0

No, there's no excuse. There's is however an choice - ou can watch the ads on Youtube, you can find an another service, or you can stop watching the funny cat movies entirely.
Expecting to be able to watch cat movies with no financial cost and no advertisements is unreasonable.
Re:Well within their rights by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-13 08:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, your disagreement with the price is not an excuse.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:01 · Score: 0

so use the same account for everyone, stupid?
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:07 · Score: 0

You get your internet for free?
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:13 · Score: 0, Insightful

Or you can block the ads and watch the videos anyway. Blocking ads is not illegal, you know.
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:23 · Score: 1

Who needs an excuse? Just block the ads. It is not illegal.
Re:Well within their rights by slashping · 2016-03-13 09:40 · Score: 1

It's an excuse for me, and your disagreement is irrelevant.
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:57 · Score: 1

Actually, it's $15 for a family of up to 6 now that they introduced a family plan.
Re:Well within their rights by slashping · 2016-03-13 10:00 · Score: 1

Expecting to be able to watch cat movies with no financial cost and no advertisements is unreasonable.
If can only watch cat movies after being forced to watch an ad, I'll skip the cat movies. I hope you won't find it unreasonable that Google has to pay all the expenses for setting up a huge server network for videos that I'm not watching.
Re:Well within their rights by slashping · 2016-03-13 10:06 · Score: 1

so use the same account for everyone, stupid?
If you're going to do that, you might as well use an adblocker, right ?
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 10:15 · Score: 0

And who is saying they have no rights to do this? Way to knock down a strawman...
Websites have all the right to block ads, and so do the users. It's my connection, my computer, and my eyeballs, after all. And if they want to block me for not downloading their ads, so be it. I'll either disable the ad-blocker, pay for their $10/mo service (which is not really ad-free), or simply stop visiting.
Go ahead and tell me I'm just a freeloader who wants free shit. You are right. Let's stop trying to make this about rights, ethics and morals. This is about business and money. They want their profit, I want to pay less (or nothing at all), period. The stuff I really want and can't get for free, I pay for. All the rest, I ignore. Sorry for ruining it for you ad-tolerating folk, but I just don't give a shit.
Re:Well within their rights by ChromeAeonium · 2016-03-13 10:27 · Score: 1

Yep. I agree that using ad-blocking software is not just reasonable, but essential, in the vast majority of cases, seeing as how they tent to bog things down, serve up various malwares, and generally act as digital pestilence, but in the case of the ads on Youtube, nope, not seeing that. I don't get the anger of having to watch a 15 second ad to support all the content you are getting for free, content which is supported by those ads. What exactly is just so wrong with that?
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 10:34 · Score: 0

Correction: "Websites have all the right to block ad-blockers, and so do the users have the right to block ads."
Re:Well within their rights by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-13 11:19 · Score: 1

No.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 11:26 · Score: 0

You are absolutely right, it is not the same. Blocking ads is legal. Entering into a contract and sharing user credentials may not be.
Re:Well within their rights by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-13 11:56 · Score: 1

The biggest difference you'll see between the two approaches is that one case is a lot more reliable than the other.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 18:01 · Score: 0

So you shouldn't complain when Youtube tells you an error has occurred when you do block those ads.
Re:Well within their rights by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 19:59 · Score: 0

Complaining isn't illegal either.
Re:Well within their rights by Rockoon · 2016-03-13 20:17 · Score: 0

Google is well within their rights to do this.
Yes.

They offer a $10/mo service to go ad-free.
Yes.

There isn't any excuse to block ads on Youtube.
Wrong you idiot.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Well within their rights by EndlessNameless · 2016-03-14 02:35 · Score: 1

Your internet connection doesn't pay Youtube---or any other site.
Your internet provider needs to make money; Youtube needs to make money. You have to pay them both.
If you pay one with money and the other with a few seconds of ad-watching, well, that's their decision on how they want to operate.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Re:Well within their rights by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-03-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Oh? Please de-idiot me.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well within their rights by wardrich86 · 2016-03-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Incorrect. They only offer this if you live in the US. I have a Google Play Music All Access subscription in Canada. $10/mo gives me the music and a 10% discount in the app store. That's it.

Sometimes an ad gets through by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:52 · Score: 0

Just yesterday I got a 6 minute ad on youtube that was basically just an entire song.
There was no skip button or anything.
This is why I use adblock
The 20 seconds of silence is well worth it.

Fuck YouTube by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 08:53 · Score: 0

It's just like TV. There are other online video services that are ten times better.

You know what else is much much better? In-browser video support.

I posted a porno (Tiny4K, check it!) in MP4 on my home server last week and sent a direct HTTP link to some buddies of mine. They clicked the link, and found their browsers streamed the file and even seek worked correctly.

To me, this is impressive, since it was the fundamental issues with in-browser video that lead to YouTube and the rise of Flash-based video. Thankfully it's all gone, and now we can more easily share video files directly with each other.

The advertising industry is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's pretty amazing. I don't own a TV, don't listen to radio, ane don't see any ads online. I have no fucking clue what movies are in theatres, what shows are on TV, or the names of up and coming celebrities. It is pure fucking BLISS.

Life is even more fantastic once you eradicate all that bullshit.

Re:The advertising industry is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 03:20 · Score: 0

+1 to this.
Tho I do listen to the radio, mostly government (tax payer) funded talk-back stuff which I sometimes find about things.
It's really weird going into the city and there's heaps of sheeple around something or some event going on and I have no idea why.
Lived in the city all my life, moving to the country or somewhere coastal but remote seems much more blissfull.
Re:The advertising industry is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:27 · Score: 0

preach on brother. I haven't seen an ad in years.
Re:The advertising industry is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 04:06 · Score: 0

Shouldn't you be raising a building or making furniture Jebediah?

Not just adblock by PopeRatzo · 2016-03-13 09:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

It doesn't matter which adblocker you use or which browser you use. I've been following this story closely, and this is what I've learned:

Whether or not you get this error (which lasts as long as an advertisement, by the way) depends on how many ads your YouTube account has blocked recently. For example, if you log out of your YouTube account you won't get the error. If you switch to a Google (or YouTube) account that you haven't used in a while, you won't get the error. And if a couple of days later you log back in with the original account, you won't get the error. But if you watch a bunch of videos with ads that get blocked, the error will start again.

And yes, it doesn't matter which adblocking software you use. uBlock users are reporting the error as well. YouTube support has basically said, "This is happening because of something we did, but it wasn't intentional. And since it wasn't intentional, we're not going to do anything about it, so you'll have to contact your adblocker's support."

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:59 · Score: 0

What about those of us who don't log into YT?
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 10:36 · Score: 0

What kind of retard uses youtube logged-in? Holy tracking batman!
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 11:04 · Score: 0

You have to log in to comment. Does that answer your question?
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 11:21 · Score: 0

As someone who doesn't have a youtube account, I still see the error - but I can get around it.
Based on all the contradicting results, I'd ask people how they have their flash player plugin setup.
Mine is set to require permission when I go to the website. If I load the site at first, then turn on the plugin, I get the error message. I never bothered waiting to see if it was temporary or not honestly, but it's the same error being reported.
If I reload the webpage, it starts working. No delay - just jumps right into the main video. I have adblock plus turned on, it's not set to allow "some unobtrustive ads"
Might be what you're seeing is also valid - for those logged in at least - but there certainly seems to be extra issues.
(oh, I also have noscript, but I tend to let almost all of youtube's scripts run anyhow.)
Re:Not just adblock by PopeRatzo · 2016-03-13 12:15 · Score: 1

As someone who doesn't have a youtube account, I still see the error

Yes, but not until you've watched a bunch of videos with blocked ads. And are you sure you're not logged into Google, maybe for gmail or something? And if you stay off YouTube for a few days, you will find the error has gone away, logged in or not. I don't know how long you have go without a blocked ad to have the error disappear.
It appears that this error may be YouTube's way of punishing people who watch a lot of videos with blocked ads. I don't know exactly what the threshold is, but there definitely seems to be a threshold.
Oh, for some reason, the error doesn't seem to occur when advancing through playlists, either.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Not just adblock by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 13:10 · Score: 1

Not everybody is worried about everything being "tracked" by the very people offering the thing. ;)
The tracking that most people dislike is where facebook or some advertising company tracks them while they're on a totally different site.
That the website you actually went to knows what you did while you were there? That is not automatically bad. What exactly is your complaint? Did you know that google (owner of youtube) doesn't sell that information?
Logging enables features such as view history, which makes it easy to find and re-watch something. It also lets you click "watch later" and resume at the same place. Also, the "recommended videos" is very useful for some people, depending on what type of content you use.
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 14:20 · Score: 0

So it relies on accepting cookies from youtube / google. Applications like youtube-dl or vlc should be immune. Rejecting or clearing cookies should make you immune.
Re:Not just adblock by Mr.+Slippery · 2016-03-13 14:29 · Score: 1

Logging enables features such as view history, which makes it easy to find and re-watch something.
Yeah, that certainly needs to be implemented with some sort of server-side user tracking. No way that a browser could have some sort of "history" or "bookmark" feature to allow the user to review and tag content on the client side.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 15:22 · Score: 0

A few days? Just load another video, watch that one, then jump back to your original page and reload it. The error will be gone. I've been getting this and just assumed youtube was more buggy as of late or my browser was being annoying as always.
I'm not logged into any Google account. I only use their registered services through fat clients and never log-in through my browser.
Re:Not just adblock by jenningsthecat · 2016-03-13 16:15 · Score: 1

Whether or not you get this error (which lasts as long as an advertisement, by the way) depends on how many ads your YouTube account has blocked recently. For example, if you log out of your YouTube account you won't get the error.
I NEVER log in to YouTube - don't even have an account, except perhaps insofar as I have a Gmail account, (which I never use), because of Android. And I DO see the error message. It DOESN'T last the length of an ad - it lasts for a second or two. I'm running both Flashblock and Adblock Edge - Adblock for obvious reasons, and Flashblock because I often have multiple YouTube tabs open and only want one to play at a time. And I have a Greasemonkey script that automatically turns off Autoplay.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Re:Not just adblock by Trogre · 2016-03-13 16:16 · Score: 1

Flash... player?
Do people still use that for YouTube?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 18:00 · Score: 0

Do you use Flash or HTML5?
I ask because the Flash player tries to load first, it shows the same useless error message as TFA talks about, then the HTML5 player loads. I started seeing this with the update that added the stupid autoplay crap several months ago. It has nothing to do with adblocking and everything to do with failing over to HTML5 if Flash isn't installed.
Re:Not just adblock by Megane · 2016-03-14 00:28 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter which adblocker you use or which browser you use. I've been following this story closely, and this is what I've learned:
Whether or not you get this error (which lasts as long as an advertisement, by the way) depends on how many ads your YouTube account has blocked recently. For example, if you log out of your YouTube account you won't get the error. If you switch to a Google (or YouTube) account that you haven't used in a while, you won't get the error. And if a couple of days later you log back in with the original account, you won't get the error. But if you watch a bunch of videos with ads that get blocked, the error will start again.
And yes, it doesn't matter which adblocking software you use. uBlock users are reporting the error as well. YouTube support has basically said, "This is happening because of something we did, but it wasn't intentional. And since it wasn't intentional, we're not going to do anything about it, so you'll have to contact your adblocker's support."

For example, if you log out of your YouTube account you won't get the error.
Well that might explain why I haven't been seeing this. I stopped logging into my account years ago when Google bought them out and started trying to link everything to G+, and then the real names policy sealed the deal.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Not just adblock by th3dutchman · 2016-03-14 00:47 · Score: 1

Nobody should be using AdBlock at this point, it has sold out to advertisers that get blocking exceptions a long time ago, just use uBlock Origin
Re:Not just adblock by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-14 01:01 · Score: 1

I got the message yesterday. Not logged in, not viewed any videos for at least a week. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with some hidden limit or being logged in, it's just random.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Not just adblock by houghi · 2016-03-14 01:44 · Score: 1

The interesting part is the following:

how many ads your YouTube account has blocked recentl

Does that mean that if you are not logged in, you will not affected? Because I have not noticed anything. I watch about 50-100 videos per day, but I (almost) never log in.
I just use RSS to be updated about the channels I follow. No need to log in. That said, I watch most videos in a frame. I just link to my website (Source http://houghi.org/yt.php?code) and see no ads with adblock there when watching e.g. http://houghi.org/yt.php?v=BBJ... (Random video)

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Not just adblock by PopeRatzo · 2016-03-14 02:07 · Score: 1

I NEVER log in to YouTube - don't even have an account, except perhaps insofar as I have a Gmail account, (which I never use), because of Android. And I DO see the error message. It DOESN'T last the length of an ad - it lasts for a second or two. I'm running both Flashblock and Adblock Edge - Adblock for obvious reasons, and Flashblock because I often have multiple YouTube tabs open and only want one to play at a time. And I have a Greasemonkey script that automatically turns off Autoplay.
I've seen the behavior you describe, but usually only in Firefox. But the "fast forward, then reload original video" technique avoids the error in all situations as far as I can tell. My Firefox has the same setup as yours and instead of the "snow" error, I get a new multi-second delay in the video starting.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 02:45 · Score: 0

You can also:
* subscribe to channels
* receive notifications of new content
* get automated recommendations based on history/likes
* vote on comments
I don't personally use any of those features, but I know people who do.
Re:Not just adblock by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:30 · Score: 0

some hardware doesn't support acceleration in the browser but flash uses the GPU just fine. so I can have wonderful stuttering HTML5 or perfect playing flash.
Re:Not just adblock by Aighearach · 2016-03-14 09:49 · Score: 1

You're just being intentionally obtuse and pretending you don't understand, then saying "tracking." Yeah, when the waitress asks if you want the "usual," that is also "tracking" according to your theory. Like I said above, the "tracking" that is a privacy concern is the tracking where people other than the owner of a website knows that you went to that website. If you want to disclose your identity to receive features that involve data storage of personal preferences, that is a whole different issue than "tracking."

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

I use Adblock Plus and don't see any ads or errors on Youtube. I use uBlock Origin on a different computer, not seeing ads or errors there either.

no problem with other ad block tools by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:17 · Score: 0

ain't had a problem with ublock origin and noscript.

I think adblock been doing something that telegraphs it's existence, possibly on purpose. Which is I suppose a valid morale question for them ads are how these sites make money and enough people just want to kill the annoying video ones which that does well enough against.

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:22 · Score: 1

Oh "shut up" yourself I guess. I have adblock plus and while I do see that "error" message occasionally, it goes away if I reload the page.

I have my flash player set up to require me to explicitly let it run on sites I visit, and it's when I first let it start running that I get the error. After reloading the page after it's been given permission, things work normally.

Best adblocker (& more for speed + security) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:38 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://apk.it-mate.co.uk/APKHo...

Gets data for more speed & security via 10 security sites.

Less power/cpu/ram+ IO resource use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers.

Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em.

Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts do more 4 speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery it's not blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:57 · Score: 0

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

This is my last post here (place is now owned by an incompetent LITTLE DOUCHE in yourself, who has serious issues & can't CODE FOR SHIT - I am proving it RIGHT NOW in fact)!

See you around, you've made my point for me PERFECTLY via your INCOMPETENCE chump... lol!

Doing just 1 more post (just to spite your DIM BRAINED ASS) BEFORE I VOLUNTARIY LEAVE stupid, not you forcing it:

Go away?

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 09:57 · Score: 0

I use ABP and Magic Actions and haven't had any issues either.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by BronsCon · 2016-03-13 10:03 · Score: 2

I'm not sure where you get "be a crook" from Aighearach's comment, even if you only consider the portion you quoted.

because they can't force me to watch their content

That would seem to imply that, if they wish to force the ads, the remaining option is to simply not watch, rather than steal. In fact, the very next sentence confirms this:

I would give up their content before watching ads

Most people choose to build their strawmen from straw, you seem to have chosen to use willful ignorance. No matter, really, as both burn equally well.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 10:32 · Score: 0

http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

This is my last post here (place is now owned by an incompetent LITTLE DOUCHE in yourself, who has serious issues & can't CODE FOR SHIT - I am proving it RIGHT NOW in fact)!

See you around, you've made my point for me PERFECTLY via your INCOMPETENCE chump... lol!

Doing just 1 more post (just to spite your DIM BRAINED ASS) BEFORE I VOLUNTARIY LEAVE stupid, not you forcing it:

Go away?

Don't go away mad. Just go away.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by camperdave · 2016-03-13 10:34 · Score: 1

If ignorance burned as readily as straw, this world would have been purged of it long ago.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 11:09 · Score: 0

youtube is showing errors when apk hosts is installed. I guess it's time for apk to find a new career.

Re:uBlock Origin master race by Barny · 2016-03-13 11:50 · Score: 2

Flash? Huh? Youtube still supports flash player video?

--
...
/me sighs

This is why my Websites Check that ads work by cubicle · 2016-03-13 11:56 · Score: 0

I usually write code hat check to see if the ad content was pushed out to the client. If not disables the site for that web browser and IP address for an hour. I do that because the ads pay for the sites; just like the commercials on TV pay for the content. Ad-blocker's are not you sticking it to the man, Ad blocker's are you shooting yourself in the foot. Without ads many sites would require subscriptions to pay for the site. Where do you think the money for the connection, server's and bandwidth come from "MARS". The joke is a site like Slashdot is paid for by advertising and without that revenue stream you would not be reading this now.

Some large advertisers can check to see if there ad's are being actually displayed or blocked using ad-blockers, Do you think something like Google ad words is going to pay Slashdot for blocked ads. Eventually if enough people used ad-blockers sites like Slashdot would have to shutdown due to lack of revenue. When you use an ad-blocker ultimately you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Get rid of Ad-Blockers and save important content websites like Slashdot, and Sourceforge.org

--
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.

Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 12:53 · Score: 0

What I usually do when this happens to me, is I close that tab and forget that website even exists.
Blocking me from your website is your right of course, but all it's doing for me is making me click on the second link in google, instead of the first.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 13:21 · Score: 1

I like this approach, because the guys like you that are free-loading off of web search or links will have to stay in the cache for the search to keep misleading users to you, and then when I don't see the content I can just add cache:// to the start of the address and view the content on a server that I have better relationship with.
Your plea at the end reminds me of the guys standing on the side of the freeway ramp with a sign, begging for money.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 13:33 · Score: 0

Like anyone goes to any of your $hitty sites.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by tepples · 2016-03-13 13:59 · Score: 2

I usually write code hat check to see if the ad content was pushed out to the client. If not disables the site for that web browser and IP address for an hour.
Do BingBot and Googlebot retrieve ads? If not, enjoy being hard to find in search engines.
Besides, in the era of IPv4 address exhaustion, ISPs are using carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) to put a hundred or a thousand users behind one IPv4 address. If one of them doesn't load your ads, for reasons such as a transient network failure or not having the proprietary Adobe Flash Player installed or even being blind (and thus unable to view images), do you block access to the site for all of them? If so, enjoy your reputation for operating an unreliable server.

Where do you think the money for the connection, server's and bandwidth come from "MARS".
A lot of Slashdot users such as bingoUV would prefer that people operate sites as a hobby, not a business, and pay for connection, server, and bandwidth out of pocket. They prefer the pre-dot-com-boom Internet that was dominated by enthusiasts, not marketers. In bingoUV's opinion, site operators that cannot accept those terms ought to change to a different industry entirely, such as meat butchering.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by raynet · 2016-03-13 18:38 · Score: 1

How much do sites need to pay for the connection, servers and bandwidth? Nowadays you can get 100Mbps uncapped VPS from OVH for 5eur/month and dedicated quadcore server for 9eur/month. Add couple of those running Varnish or something as reverse proxy for your site (and perhaps put free Cloudflare on top of that too) and then get one of their beefier servers as backend, costs 25eur/month. And if you cannot afford to pay that much for a site per month and/or not get enough donations etc, then perhaps you shouldn't be running a website at all.

--
- Raynet --> .
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 06:14 · Score: 0

Hi Troll
You do realize hiring people to create content cost money, and if your site streams video your bandwith cost goes way up. If your site is only using a 100mbps then you won't survive for long because that is only 1000 people using your site at any time, and advertising company pay pennies per 1000 people. You need to do a course on running a business and do your homework.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by cubicle · 2016-03-14 06:40 · Score: 0

Me: I usually write code hat check to see if the ad content was pushed out to the client. If not disables the site for that web browser and IP address for an hour.
Tepples: Do BingBot and Googlebot retrieve ads? If not, enjoy being hard to find in search engines.
Me: My sites check to see who and what is loading or crawling my sites, and create a page spefically for that user crawler.
Next Comment:
Me: I usually write code hat check to see if the ad content was pushed out to the client. If not disables the site for that web browser and IP address for an hour.
Tepples: Do BingBot and Googlebot retrieve ads? If not, enjoy being hard to find in search engines.
Besides, in the era of IPv4 address exhaustion, ISPs are using carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) to put a hundred or a thousand users behind one IPv4 address. If one of them doesn't load your ads, for reasons such as a transient network failure or not having the proprietary Adobe Flash Player installed or even being blind (and thus unable to view images), do you block access to the site for all of them? If so, enjoy your reputation for operating an unreliable server.
Me: I use other methods in conjunction which I will not reveal to make sure the right person is being punished.
Next Comment:
Me: Where do you think the money for the connection, server's and bandwidth come from "MARS".
Tepples: A lot of Slashdot users such as bingoUV [slashdot.org] would prefer that people operate sites as a hobby, not a business, and pay for connection, server, and bandwidth out of pocket. They prefer the pre-dot-com-boom Internet that was dominated by enthusiasts, not marketers. In bingoUV's opinion, site operators that cannot accept those terms ought to change to a different industry entirely, such as meat butchering.
Me: Well when Google, Yahoo, Bing, Reuters, Fox News, and (Just about every other website) operates as a hobby give me a call.

--
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.
Re:This is why my Websites Check that ads work by cubicle · 2016-03-14 06:43 · Score: 0

I am not free loading or misleading anyone.
The at the end of the highway is not working, but a communist like you would never understand the capitialist principle of working and getting paid for it.

--
To err is to be human, to really screw up takes a computer and a human.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 11:59 · Score: 1

If ignorance burned as readily as straw, this world would have been purged of it long ago.

Yeah, just like the straw! Oh, wait...

Not intentional? My ass. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 12:46 · Score: 0

This is not intentional in the same way as jumping up on your desk while you're eating, dropping trou, squatting and leaving a deuce would be "non-intentional".

"I didn't mean to shit on your lunch. Really, I didn't mean to do that!"

Re:Not intentional? My ass. by Aighearach · 2016-03-13 13:17 · Score: 1

That is one of those things where if they're that crazy or on that many hallucinogens to even do it, then I might very well believe that they thought they were somewhere else, like in a bathroom on a spaceship.

I believe them that it isn't intentional; they do have bugs in their other services. I can understand their point; they don't like ad-blockers or approve of them, and they have no reason to care about the bug.

I think it was polite of them to acknowledge that the unexpected behavior was correlated to some change that they made. If they say it was unintentional I believe them, because if it was on purpose, it would be within their rights, and if they were planning on pushing out this feature they would have no reason to be unclear about it.

Or your sites will have to scale back to- by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 13:19 · Score: 0

-creating the content the marketplace will support, instead of content the marketplace won't support. There are too many people on the internet, myself included, who want to make better content than the internet is willing to pay for. It's no one's fault but our own when we go ahead and make the content of our dreams anyway.

Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 13:21 · Score: 0

I specifically block ads because I am not going to buy anything that advertisers feel the need to push down my throat with flashy banners. I have never bought any product or service from an ad, and I have been using the internet since the 90s. My ad impressions are worthless, and payment per impression is only effective because X impressions generally equals Y conversions. By having ads forced down my throat, I am actually devaluing impression rates for CPM ads! I am not hurting anyone by blocking content that I want to block. Demanding that people disable adblockers and contribute to worthless impressions is nuts to me. That is an unsustainable business model for the people paying advertisers, that focuses only on short term gains, and it will collapse on itself. It is not my duty to figure out business models for websites. If slashdot cannot survive if I don't allow 3rd party privacy violating content trying to sell me shit, then let it die. Something will replace it. If nothing replaces it for free, I might consider subscriptions for the things I want.

Workaround by n3r0.m4dski11z · 2016-03-13 13:22 · Score: 1

Yeah someone figured that out a while ago, well its nice to see the cause being identified (Guess they don't care THAT much about net neutrality afterall...)

But at least they figured out a solution already and this works for me.

Start a youtube video from link.
when it does not load, click on the right right sidebar videos.
that one loads fine (is it a bug? hope not)
Now press ALT + LEFT ARROW and poof your original video in all its glory. Works most times for me.

I actually thought it was flashblock screwing up but my wife has noticed it for months and complained that youtube is "unusable".

--
-

Re:Workaround by wvmarle · 2016-03-13 17:54 · Score: 1

I actually thought it was flashblock screwing up but my wife has noticed it for months and complained that youtube is "unusable".
I for one would also first blame YouTube not working well as they start presenting errors. I'm not going to wait for an error to go away by itself - error means error to me, not "wait a while". It's anyway odd that they'd start showing errors instead of a "please switch off AdBlock" message.

Not everybody can run a home server by tepples · 2016-03-13 13:46 · Score: 1

on my home server

Most people don't have a home server, for one or more of the following reasons:

The only wired home ISP in the area bans home servers and threatens to enforce that ban with a 12-month disconnection.
The only wired home ISP in the area uses carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) to fit more customers into fewer public IPv4 addresses. Devices behind CGNAT do not receive connections from the public Internet.
The person publishing the video lacks knowledge or permission to configure DHCP reservation and port forwarding on his home Internet gateway, which are needed to make a server behind a home NAT visible to the public.
The person publishing the video doesn't have a spare machine that can be left on at home at all times.

In each of these cases, it is often less hassle to use YouTube than to transcode a video into a dozen formats yourself and put them all in an S3 bucket. It's also far less hassle to leave ad sales to YouTube than to try to find sponsors to cover the cost of hosting your individual videos.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 14:16 · Score: 0

Like straw, ignorance has its uses. Therefore, it is cultivated.

How about a totally client-side adblocker? by Nogami_Saeko · 2016-03-13 14:31 · Score: 2

How about something that is totally client-side and does nothing but obscure ads? Load 'em up, use my bandwidth, whatever. Just hide them so they don't annoy me. Would make the blocker technology impossible to detect.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle

Re:How about a totally client-side adblocker? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 02:01 · Score: 0

Sounds like using hosts files is what you need in a client-side method that's not browser-side detectable http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
Re:How about a totally client-side adblocker? by doconnor · 2016-03-15 06:42 · Score: 1

You'll still have to wait for the period of time to show the commercial, which is exactly what it happening now.

[solved] by hattable · 2016-03-13 21:05 · Score: 1

Whitelist youtube.com and problem solved. Added bonus is you get to support your favourite youtubers when you watch a monetized video. They're not that bad. And they let you skip at 5 seconds anyway if it isn't relevant to you.

--
OMG facts!

I'm not opening YT streams using a browser by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 21:05 · Score: 0

If I want to open a YT video I open it using streaming applications.

Reload? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-13 22:33 · Score: 0

I've been getting the error for a while, but just assumed it was one of the dozen or so things I do for privacy, security, or other general 'make the internet actually usable' reasons. I just hit 'reload' and it goes away and the video starts playing. ...at least for 'epic fail' videos, which is pretty much all I ever watch.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 00:16 · Score: 0

I'm giving THEM a few options - if they choose my custom, they can either require everyone to take out a subscription or tolerate my blocking ads. I'm not sure how "assume they can require my browser to download stuff I don't want" is a justified option here.

Re:Not trying to force. You select YouTube Red or by bitchtits · 2016-03-14 00:57 · Score: 1

It just kinda looks that this is a warning shot. Maybe. Technically, they could refuse service to adblock users. Whether that would be moral... Well thats quite entirely another matter.

Adblocking browser addons = inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 02:15 · Score: 0

Can addons do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability (+ more efficiently)?

1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Avoid dnsrequest logs
13.) Speed up surfing (adblock & hardcodes)
14.) Works on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) EZ datacontrol
16.) Block ads more efficiently

Answer's NO on addons doing it well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively - not illogically inefficiently "Bolting on 'MoAr'".

(Ads on same site = rare: Advertisers don't trust webmaster click counts)

Addons = blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ by native browser methods: Untrue for hosts (part of IP stack).

APK

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 02:48 · Score: 0

Just go away. Anyone who wants your shitty software has already downloaded it by now.

...YouTube Red, but not in sweden... by Mirar · 2016-03-14 03:27 · Score: 1

Is there any way I can pay youtube a small amount of money, so I wouldn't have to deal with ads at all, that isn't "Youtube Red"?
"YouTube Red is not currently available in Sweden."

Youtube redoing the ads is the reason I installed ABP again; before that a simple DNS block did the trick.

For the best possible hosts file by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 04:00 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://apk.it-mate.co.uk/APKHo...

Gets data for more speed & security via 10 security sites.

Less power/cpu/ram+ IO resource use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers.

Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em.

Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts do more 4 speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery it's not blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ

I Honestly Don't Mind by Reteo+Varala · 2016-03-14 04:14 · Score: 1

I don't really mind the ads too much; the ads I hate are the javascript and flash monstrosities that slow browsers down to a crawl. But I'm willing to wait 4-15 seconds for the content to come on; it's what allows content producers to get paid for their (sometimes) hard work (something I eventually want to do for myself one day).

--
The Penguin Producer

Haven't seen this yet, and I'm a heavy user by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-14 09:32 · Score: 0

As the subject says. I use FF Nightly with Umatrix (which can use block lists), and Chrome with ABP and some other generic Ad Blocker, named as such. I watch/listen to at least a couple of hours of content each day, and have yet to see this behavior (that I've noticed). No delays or error messages whatsoever.

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 02:41 · Score: 0

Users using hosts don't see that error https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

For the best possible hosts file by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 03:05 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://apk.it-mate.co.uk/APKHo...

Gets data for more speed & security via 10 security sites.

Less power/cpu/ram+ IO resource use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers.

Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em.

Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts do more 4 speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery it's not blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-15 04:14 · Score: 0

Apk's "shitty software" does a lot more for lots less than browser addon inefficient redundant crippled junk can https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

Use the Flash version instead by blivit42 · 2016-03-15 04:16 · Score: 1

I'd been getting the "an error has occured, please try again later" error ever since the move to HTML5. I assumed it was yet another bug in HTML5 video support. So, I installed the plugin that lets you force Flash on youtube, and the problem went away. I never connected it with AdBlock. I had no idea an ad was even trying to play. I just forced Flash, which solved the problem, and never looked back. If Goggle wants to get rid of Flash, then they need to fix their HTML5 support to not get broken by adblockers (and also give a more informative error message, as I had no clue that adblocking was the problem).

It is, annoying, however, that the Flash version continues to default to pretty much the smallest low-resolution version available, and I have to switch to 720p or 1080p on *every single video*, despite my having set my preferences to use the highest video resolution. So, you either get broken HTML5 or broken Flash, neither one of which they appear to have any intention of fixing....

Re:Best adblocker (& more for speed + security by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-18 05:12 · Score: 0

Then hosts is not blocking the ads.
So either you are blocking them, or youtube is printing the error. You can't have it both ways.

hosts is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-27 17:55 · Score: 0

Just confirmed that apk's instructions do not work.

Slashdot Mirror

YouTube Shows Adblock Plus Users an Error Message Instead of Ads

205 comments