338
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 89 points 10 months ago

YouTube is going to lose this battle lol.

Both from a legal standpoint and the fact that adblockers WILL adapt

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

So, they've already won. They just haven't turned on the nuclear option yet.

They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome, it is a way for them to disallow access to YouTube and other services via anything but an approved browser. This would include approved extensions.

So I'll use something that isn't chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube. Making chrome and chrome derivatives via its Internet drm the only option.

[-] query@lemmy.world 77 points 10 months ago

A monopoly trying to lock in browsers isn't going to last in the EU.

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 26 points 10 months ago

Or even the US. Microsoft lost that one in the late 90s.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They killed Netscape and had to put in a toggle with the option of other browsers like 10 years later. They paid next to nothing in fines and legal battles, basically putting a stranglehold on the internet itself that took another 10 to kinda of undo.

Not sure if that’s a “loss.”

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 17 points 10 months ago

Wrong decade. We’re talking about having internet explorer pre installed on windows 95 and 98. It was a really big antitrust thing.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

microsoft is pulling all their dirty tricks from the 90s unchecked rn.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Ehh maybe, widevine exists for drm already. They will just claim its an extension of that.

[-] MasterBuilder@lemmy.one 31 points 10 months ago

Anti-trust lawsuit in 3... 2...

[-] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 14 points 10 months ago

I hope they get annihilated by that lawsuit.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 24 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome

This will be legally challenged later, if it is not opt-in.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Eh, probably. But it's for fighting those darned internet pirates, and the only body that seems to protect us anymore, the eu, seems to be all for that. So I'm.not expecting anything good

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 3 points 10 months ago

What makes you think the EU is for internet monopolies after the DMA?

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

They are all for copyright protection, the current copyright reform act proposes automatic scanners installed to prevent copywritten content from being displayed without authorization

[-] Vendul@feddit.de 17 points 10 months ago

I don‘t even worry. Some clever dudes will find a way to spoof Chrome with a Firefox extension

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

It's a drm system, so we're talking end to end encryption from server to display, but for evil. It's not a spoof thing

[-] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

Even in the US, a corporate monopoly trying to force people to use their browser will trigger an antitrust lawsuit from the government. Microsoft has already faced one for what they did with Edge, and they didn't even do DRM.

Besides, it's YouTube. If you can't use it anymore, it's not gonna be the end of the world.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

It's not that simple, it's not forcing everyone to use chrome, it's denying access to copyrighted material to drmed browsers only. This is something that already happens and no one seems to want to break things up around that. Infaft they seem to legislate more for that.

And sure today it's youtube, but this is actually a form of drm for everything. Today youtube tomorrow everything else.

[-] Marin_Rider@aussie.zone 2 points 10 months ago

we're going to go back to needing "apps" for everything on desktops soon. desktop covered in shortcuts for every shitty service we need to use.

God this passes me off

[-] Gabu@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

If they want their services to instantly die, sure.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Ah, you forget that the general population is perfectly OK with inconveniences.

[-] Fizz@lemmy.nz 2 points 10 months ago

Majority of people already use chrome

[-] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 10 months ago

People are acting as if losing YouTube and other Google services is the end of the world. It is not. You don't need Google, even if you use Android.

[-] yukichigai@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago

That would be easy to challenge under the same reasoning as what's in the article, not to mention various anti-trust laws and ones covering anti-competitive business practices.

Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stop them, but it's definitely not going to be as easy as them flipping a few switches and saying "watch ads on our browser with no addons or GTFO".

[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Most importantly, such a move would kill YouTube as a platform. Removing other browsers from the picture would cut off a majority of their viewers

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Tygr@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I stopped using Chrome about 3 weeks ago. Used Edge for a while but finding out that is Chromium, I landed back on Firefox after 10 years of not using it. Just moved all my bookmarks and plugins.

Why? Principles the moment people force me to use their software is the moment I leave.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

So I'll use something that isn't chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube.

Fast track to getting people to stop using YouTube. No service or company is immune to this.

[-] Alby003@lemmings.world 10 points 10 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago
[-] yukichigai@kbin.social 22 points 10 months ago

Not even Microsoft in its monolith days was able to spend enough money to stop a legion of angry nerds with a severe case of "fuck you, you can't tell me what to do".

[-] pip@slrpnk.net 28 points 10 months ago
[-] haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 10 points 10 months ago

Just started and instance 3 days ago. :)

[-] Alby003@lemmings.world 1 points 10 months ago
[-] cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Its their platform . its their choice. We don't have a choice to force them to allow adblockers. There is always a choice to load content after the ads are served . If they go that route then no adblocker can bypass it.

[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 38 points 10 months ago

EU bullied sites into showing cookies warnings even on sites outside of EU. In effing Russia of all places too. You'd think, with enough torque, anything can be pushed onto them. Even good things.

[-] Sheeple@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Except it's been shown that doesn't work by every site ever that tried it and Adblockers still worked.

That funny popup? Yeah doesn't exist for me. I deleted it on my end within my device and there is nothing YouTube can do about it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] crimsdings@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As the European law stands and is interpreted, yes we can force them to remove their current implemention

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@beehaw.org 8 points 10 months ago

It's their choice, and I would simply not use YouTube. Access to YouTube specifically is not very concerning to me.

But if they try to normalize this or even attempt to influence legislators that adblockers should be restricted in any way by law, then I would be concerned, and for this reason I think it's important to articulate right now that there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about using an adblocker.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

Hopefully it would also apply to websites which port scan your computer.

[-] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 18 points 10 months ago

Why adblockers are essential in a nutshell ⤴️

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 14 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Interview Last week, privacy advocate (and very occasional Reg columnist) Alexander Hanff filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) decrying YouTube's deployment of JavaScript code to detect the use of ad blocking extensions by website visitors.

YouTube's open hostility to ad blockers coincides with the recent trial deployment of a popup notice presented to web users who visit the site with an ad-blocking extension in their browser – messaging tested on a limited audience at least as far back as May.

"In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification over the application of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and whether or not consent would be required for all access to or storage of information on an end user's device which was not strictly necessary," Hanff told The Register.

"Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher).

Hanff disagrees, and maintains that "The Commission and the legislators have been very clear that any access to a user's terminal equipment which is not strictly necessary for the provision of a requested service, requires consent.

"This is also bound by CJEU Case C-673/17 (Planet49) from October 2019 which all Member States are legally obligated to comply with, under the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] – there is no room for deviation on this issue," he elaborated.


The original article contains 1,030 words, the summary contains 258 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] crimsdings@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

I filed the same complaint at the Austrian data privacy agency and asked them to coordinate with the Irish one. You should do the same in your European nation.

[-] Tygr@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Anyone have family call them after finding out blocking ads on YT is even possible?

I think all this is causing a bit of Streisand effect. Now even more will be blocking ads.

[-] Yinchie@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Just for your info, There are alternative YouTube clients that allow you to bypass all the ads. Working great on Windows and Android. When you update uBlock Origin, it works on browsers as well.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
338 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16263 readers
49 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.


You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...


Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!


This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.


Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS