Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Shows Adblock Plus Users an Error Message Instead of Ads
An anonymous reader writes: Do you use YouTube with Adblock Plus? Some users have been getting the following message instead of ads: "An error occurred. Please try again later." The error message is only shown for the duration of the ad, meaning Adblock Plus is still technically getting the job done. But adblocking extensions typically block ads as well as remove them: For banner ads that means gaining back screen real estate on the webpage while for videos that means the content starts playing right away.
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.
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
Hmm, ads possibly serving malware, or cat vidz. decisions decisions.
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.
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.
"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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Flash? Huh? Youtube still supports flash player video?
...
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.
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.
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