397 points

So many corporate bootlickers here, damn.

permalink
report
reply
188 points
*

It’s like they think the only way to make money is to drown us in ads based off the telemetry they scoop up and we’re entitled brats for wanting to have a say in how our data is harvested/used against us.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points
*

That’s their business model. Drowning us in ads is literally how they make money. They aren’t a tech company. They’re an ad aggregation company. They collect data via having users use freemium services. They use that data to create anonymized profiles of millions or billions of people. They break those profiles down into subsets. And then they let ad companies buy the ability for Google to target those users with ads based on things they’re likely to buy based on the data that Google has collected. It’s a much more effective way of marketing ads than just playing ad spots on tv or on radio. Better than billboards and magazine spreads etc. That’s literally what Google (and Apple, and Amazon even) do. It’s what Facebook does. It’s what most social media does. Their tech? Just a way to get you to buy into an ecosystem so you continue to feed the profile and the algorithm and see the ads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points

I’m sorry but with all do respect I do not need you to lecture me about how big data dovetails with digital marketing or the B2B side of it for google, thanks.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

I mean, no matter what, you do have a say. You can just not use YouTube. Pretty easy, actually.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That won’t prevent Google from scraping my data from every other website I use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

There’s a paid service though.

Like I get the sentiment, and I use YouTube with uBlock Origin to avoid paying, but if you’re not willing to pay and you’re not willing to watch ads what are you proposing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

I paid for paid for premium for a while. Then it showed me an ad for paramount + anyways. So I said fuck you google and installed an ad blocker.

Point being I was willing and did pay for the premium service. But even “ad free with premium” still wasn’t ad free. It was “ad reduced”

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

There are stil ads with the paid service as i understand it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

The existence of the paid offering doesn’t invalidate use of the free offering, regardless of whether people are permitting ads on the latter. Any given Youtube page is just a collection of web elements and a call to a video server: these things get loaded or blocked at my sole discretion. My hardware, my web browser, my internet bandwidth, my opsec, my time.

If I put household items out on the nature strip, I have no expectation that passers-by will have a cup of tea with me first, then take every item as an indivisible lot. So my proposal to Google is: take those items off the nature strip, put them back inside the house and lock the door. Until they do that, no issue exists, despite the company’s efforts to fabricate one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I cannot get ad-free experience with YT Premium. I can only get ad-free videos bundled with a whole bunch of other useless shit I will never use like YT Music. And the simple reason why I cannot get only ad-free videos is because then I would pay them less, so they don’t give me the option.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I’ve recently been downvoted to oblivion for writing this exact thing, talking about online newspapers.

People don’t want ads and they don’t want to pay. They just expect to get stuff for free and I can’t decide if that’s because Lemmy is either filled with spoiled brats, or people who genuinely do not know how the world works, or both.

In their partial defence, I must say that the way companies have used the Internet up until a few years ago may have led them to believe that free content is a thing.

And, before someone comes along and tries to tear me a new one, YES, I do use uBlock on sites that harvest too many data (e.g. anything by Google) or sites that are too aggressive with ads. But at least I know that I’m either a freeloader or, in the best case scenario, a protester. And I know that, if everyone did the same, so much of the internet would just shut down or go behind paywalls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

lol you got downvoted for a perfectly reasonable question, it’s like Reddit all over again

permalink
report
parent
reply
116 points

In the second quarter of 2023, Google’s revenue amounted to over 74.3 billion U.S. dollars, up from the 69.1 billion U.S. dollars registered in the same quarter a year prior.

But man if we don’t pay for youtube premium how will they survive?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The amount of money they made is entirely meaningless without knowing their spending.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Revenue isn’t profit?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-26 points

that’s google not youtube though, is it? i think youtube is running at a loss still + in a normal country that shit should have been blasted apart already way too many shit is under google.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

I think they have pretty recently finally become profitable thanks to the increased amount of ads. Although you could always make the argument before that the data YouTube provides to Google that allowed their ad and data empire to thrive is invaluable whether YouTube directly profits or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Why are people down voting you? Damn there’s an infestation of corp simps here

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points

the richest country in the world is a normal country regardless of your xenophobia

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

I’ll say it again: Google pays 5-year-old “influencers” millions of dollars. They have always harvested your data to provide these free services - selling ads was just icing. They still harvest your data and sell ads and they still make the same money they’ve always made - only now they are insisting that everyone watch ads or pay for it as well. And of course, eventually YouTube will insist that you watch ads and pay for it. This is the equivalent of “network decay” for streaming services. This is unreasonable and while there are exceptions to the rule, most people have the same reaction to what Google is doing here: surprise, and dismay, if not outright anger and disgust.

Yet every single thread about it on the Internet is utterly overflowing with people lecturing us about how we shouldn’t expect something for nothing, as if we aren’t fully aware that this is the most transparent of straw men. These people insist that we are the problem for daring to block ads - and further - that we should be thrilled to pay Google for this content, as they are. And they are! They just can’t get enough of paying Google for YouTube! It’s morally upright, it’s the best experience available and money flows so freely for everyone these days, we should all be so lucky to be able to enjoy paying Google the way they do. And of course it’s all so organic, these comments.

Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

selling ads was just icing

You’re talking about these as if they’re separate things. Literally no company in existence harvests your data for any reason other than to serve better ads or to drive business decisions internally. Nobody gives a shit about your data otherwise. Ads are literally the only reason.

as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac

I mean… If the shoe fits, man.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s assume Youtube follows your advice, and stops showing ads on YouTube. Data collection is the only source of revenue. How does YouTube make money on that data? Be specific please. Who is buying the data, and what is the buyer going to do the data besides show you a targeted ad?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

Oh hey you put this part in before being downvoted this time lmao. If you think it’s worth googles time to be astroturfing on fucking lemmy, you have a couple screws loose lmfao.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

While I agree, you shouldn’t underestimate just how fucking cheap astroturfing services are, and how much easier it is to generate astroturfing posts using the plethora of LLMs out in the wild.

I still think it’s silly to think they’re doing that here, but it should be considered.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

did you just tey to pre-emptively suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a google paid shill?

Because if so I would like to know where I can apply for my payment from Google.

I think any reasonable person knows by now that if you don’t “pay for a product you sre the product”, everyone knows youtube collects data and sells it and your eyes to advertisers that’s their business model, guess what those servers youtube runs on? aren’t free, as you yourself said, content creators aren’t free, the engineers working on YouTube aren’t free, so your suggestion is that despite this, youtube should still be free and ad/data collection free.

well do tell me, how long do you think youtube will last with your business model?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’ve blocked maybe eight people in thirty minutes who are implicitly demanding that corporations create the law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

And one of them immediately down voted you. I wonder why they’re here on Lemmy instead of continuing to support Reddit? They clearly like to be bottoms to corpos.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We must trust our corporate overlords who will use AI to guide us in their right direction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

Everyone I don’t agree with == bootlicker 🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Are you arguing people should only try to be correct when it benefits a poor person? When being correct benefits a rich person we should just lie about the truth?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Then stop making stupid arguments, it only serves to make you look stupid

permalink
report
parent
reply
-24 points

I honestly don’t really care if people adblock or not but I think people need to acknowledge that adblock is essentially piracy. That doesn’t make it inherently bad or good but it has the same impacts as piracy at the end of the day. It’s a useful tool to use when companies start to get unreasonable but especially in the case of YouTube it impacts the amount of money the people who make the content earn.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

But piracy has no impact at all. Pirates never wanted to buy your stuff.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Honestly, there is plenty of stuff I’d pay for but I pirate if it’s difficult to access.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t know, I probably would have paid for at least half the things I pirate if I had to (especially books).

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

that only applies to p2p torrents where there aren’t infrastructure costs, youtube has infrastructure costs.

grabbing a torrent from the net and downloading it doesn’t cost anyone anything, it’s all volunteers providing their bandwidth for it.

youtube’s bandwidth isn’t free.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I honestly don’t really care if people adblock or not but I think people need to acknowledge that adblock is essentially piracy.

The same way it is piracy to go to the bathroom during the commercials…

Look, the problem at hand is not if people use adblocker or not, the problem here is how Google check if you are using adblocker or not, which seems to be illegal.

Well, the full “check for adblocker” things seems to be illegal in EU, whatever way it is used, given a sentence from 2016

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I don’t think it’s piracy exactly but I fully realize there would not be a huge video site like YouTube without ads or limiting it to paid subscribers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
264 points

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he’s making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they’re doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he’s repeatedly flaunting credentials that don’t change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.

permalink
report
reply
51 points

Ah yeah the kind of hullabaloo that makes everyone accept cookies on every single website ;)

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points
1 point

Also exists on chromium for the chrome/opera/… lovers here

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Yay for ublocks annoyance pop up blocker. No more cookie pop ups

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points
*

You’re missing the point/s

  1. What they’re doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
  2. What they’re doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
  3. Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn’t be able to help themselves to users local data, and it’s something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
  4. This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a “dead end”, it’s the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they’ve had enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I think it’s a question of drawing a line between “commercial right” and “public good”.

Mathematical theorems automatically come under public good (because apparently they count as discoveries, which is nonsense - they are constructions), but an artist’s sketch comes under commercial right.

YouTube as a platform is so ubiquitously large, I suspect a lot of people consider it a public good rather than a commercial right. Given there is a large body of educational content, as well as some essential lifesaving content, there is an argument to be made for it. Indeed, even the creative content deserves a platform.

A company that harvests the data of billions, has sold that data without permission for decades, and evades tax like a champion certainly owes a debt of public good.

The actions of Google are not those of a company “seeking their due”, for their due has long since been harvested by their monopolisation of searches, their walked garden appstore, and their use of our data to train their paid AI product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Err, going through threads of conversations on both reddit and lemmy regarding YouTube, one would assume ad free access is the norm and Google even daring to offer Youtube Premium is a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

I get what you are saying, but you could argue that google is pretty much a monopoly at this point, using their power trying to extract money from customers they could never do if their was any real competition with a similar number of channels and customers.

I think most users see google/youtube as a “the internet”, or a utility as important as power, water and heat. And don’t forget that google already requires users to “pay” for their services with data and ads in other services (maps, search, mail) as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Nope, but it is legally required to ask for permission to look into my device for data that it does not need to provide the serice.

Of course Google could make money, it just need to make them without violating the laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s all well and good that Google want to make money from my data - but they should be paying me for it. The value of my data isn’t from the data itself, but what can be done with it.

You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

Unrecognized entitlement on their part, lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

the data that is physically within your system is yours alone.

Actually, ALL the data Google has on you is yours. Google do not own the data, neither do reddit, Facebook or anyone else. They merely have a licence.

Personally I think even that is illegal. Contracts require consideration, you exchange x for y, then you have details in the terms and conditions. This is like “come in for free!” and then everything is in the terms and conditions. If you look at insurance, they’re required to have a key facts page to bring to the front the main points from the terms in plain English. The cookie splash screen doesn’t really do this, as it obfuscates just how much data they collect, and is for the most part unenforceable as you can’t see what data they hold. Furthermore, the data they collect isn’t proportional to your use of the website.

The whole thing flies in the face of the core principles of contract law under which all trading is done. They tell us our data has no value and it isn’t worth the hassle of us getting paid, yet they use that data to become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. We might not know how to make use of that data, and you’ll need a lot of other data to build something to sell, but a manufacturer of nuts and bolts doesn’t know how to build a car - yet they still get paid for a portion of the value derived from their product through others’ work, as most of the value comes from what you can do with it. We’re all being robbed, every single one of us, including politicians and lawmakers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Very good point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points

Immoral? For making you watch ads? How are ads immoral? You’re using the service, you watch ads, it’s not rocket surgery

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Its immoral for the way its being done, not what was done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

Nope, the point is that, at the moment, Google seems to look where it should not look to know if a user has an adblocker and they don’t ask for permission.

Let put it in another way: Google need to have my permission to look into my device.

But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads.

Which is fine as long as Google can decide that I am using an adblocker without violating any law, which is pretty hard.

Of course Google could decide that it is better to leave EU and it law that protect the users, but is it a smart move from a company point of view ?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

All they need to implement ad block detection is user consent, which they likely cover on their terms of service and privacy policy.

Source

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Because of GDPR, in the EU user consent has to be explicitly asked for and given, not implicitly via some catch all in a 20 pages Terms Of Service.

Hence all the cookie pop-ups.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

The guy really exudes “don’t you know who I am?” energy. Which is a shame since it detracts from the discussion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

It’s not even clear to me that the mechanism they’re using today is problematic. I don’t know what it is, but the author seems to think they do but aren’t sharing details beyond “trust me bro”. I agree that some kind of inspection-based detection might run afoul of the law, but I don’t see why that’s necessary. All you need to know is that the client is requesting videos without any of the ad requests making it through, which is entirely server-side.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Exactly.

But people are hell bent on “Google doing this, bad”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Ha ha no. Google needs you more than you need google.

> but but but the ads moneh

If google made so much money from ads, they wouldn’t care if you watched it at all. They want your consumerist data and they can’t get it with adblock.

> but but but muh creators

Most major creators have complained about google shafting them with schizo rules about monetization. The biggers ones have started to sell merch and use other platforms as insurance. You watching those ads gives google more benefits than the creators.

Youtube is NOT essential. You can live without youtube. Simply follow the creators you like on other platforms. If you’re a creator, time to diversify your platform. The iceberg is sighted and it’s time to jump ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
*

Google DOES make money from ads. A metric tuckton of it. Why the fuck else would they need your data other than to serve better ads???

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I feel like they’re eventually just going to embed the adverts directly into the video streams. No more automated blocking, even downloading will make you see ads. Sure, you can fast forward the video a bit, but it will be annoying enough that you’ll see and hear a few seconds of ads each time, and you won’t be able to just leave it running while you do other things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

the reason they are not doing it is because the ads are personalized. So if they want to bake an ad onto a video they will end up with countless videos each on with their own unique ads which is not viable logistically. So they can only do it on-the-fly. But re-encoding each video on-the-fly for each user is also a nightmare logistically, if not impossible at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Don’t they have standardized resolutions and the file broken into hundreds/thousands of parts anyways? Couldn’t they just add in ads to some of those parts in those same resolutions?

e.g: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP

Similar to Apple’s HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) solution, MPEG-DASH works by breaking the content into a sequence of small segments, which are served over HTTP.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I don’t think you’d need to re-encode the whole thing on the fly. More frigging the container data around, than the video/audio codec itself.

That way I could request some_pointless_video.mp4 and it sends me 95% the same thing as is already on their server, with adverts jammed into it at defined intervals.

They probably think they can win for now by messing with individual ad-blockers, but with 3rd party players becoming more popular, I can see that being a catch-all solution.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Have you met my friend SponsorBlock?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That only works by users crowdsourcing and flagging the advert sections.

By doing it on the fly, each user could get different ads in different places.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They can’t do that because of YouTube premium. They know they’re making a lot of money from people who don’t want to see ads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

the problem is not the premium. The problem is the personalized ads.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Then those users would get the ad free stream.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Won’t cost them anything near weeks of dev time. They can just write it into their terms of service and prompt you to re-accept those next time you access the site.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Afaik you can’t bypass laws and regulations with ToS

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Definetly not if you are not registered. And likely if you are not logged in. This is EU, not US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You can’t bypass laws, but the law in question only requires permission of the enduser. Getting this permission in your ToS isn’t bypassing anything, it’s acting according to the law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

They could easily put a “consent” requirement to access

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

And in the war you probably also sided with the Nazis because ‘well they invaded already, might as well give up’

permalink
report
parent
reply
207 points

Everyday I think the European Union for preventing the internet from being worse than it could be. It’s sad that back when the internet was a cesspool was so far the best age for it. Normies really do ruin everything

permalink
report
reply
72 points

The same EU that threaten E2EE?

permalink
report
parent
reply
70 points

The EU has its faults, too, like this BS about sacrificing encryption. Overall, there seem to be a lot of benefits reigning in big companies, though.

Who else is looking out for their citizens? I think some congresspeople in the US ask tough questions, but in the end, business just goes on as usual.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Yes, the same EU. The fact that it’s considering some poor choices doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s actions thus far have been positive and deserve appreciation. Real Life doesn’t split people neatly into heroes and villains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

Don’t be an asshole and blame regular people for shit like this. This is because of big tech

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

Actually I will, because big Tech used to be on the level because they knew they would be called out for fuckery. Then Facebook brought the Baby Boomers online and it was the Eternal September on steroids.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Those are still actions made by the tech companies. Blaming people for not complaining enough is not the best take on this. Just shifts the blame to the public, not to the people who made those decisions in the first place

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

This is the same chicken / egg thing as plastic pollutions.

Sure consumers choice of whether to discard or recycle a plastic straw is nothing compared to the decisions of corporations, but then consumers invest in those companies, buy their products, and elect representatives who do not hold them accountable.

Big tech has ruined the internet because people were willing to trade their privacy and their attention in order to watch gifs of cats playing the piano. I’m not “blaming” people for that - hell, I was one of them, but you can’t solve the problem without understanding how it’s perpetuated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

The normies support big tech, they love it. They probably work for big tech, or wish they did, or at least imagine themselves as the next Elon Musk.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The “normies” don’t even know what these things are. It’s just the big blue “f” on their phone, or the colourful camera icon.

Half this shit is installed by default on pretty much any phone you can buy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Touch grass bud.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Strictly speaking, management at Big Tech are all normies and they make the decisions.

I think the point is solid: non-tech-people sell capabilities to other non-tech-people to make money, and this forms a feedback loop and drives direction. A non-big-tech world is wildly different because it’s more like tech people building an environment for doing things with other tech people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Management of big tech are excessively rich assholes. The rich, by the very definition, do not fall into the category of “normal people”

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Strictly speaking, that’s nonsense. Is everyone that’s not you a normie? Or is normie a ‘normal person’, which then absolutely does not include rich managers of big tech companies?

Really strange point to make, man.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

“Don’t be an asshole”? As a response to a short three sentence statement where no one was an asshole…

I think you’re the fucking asshole regardless of how much blame “big tech” and corporations in general bare here.

Slow the fuck down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s not the sheep’s fault they’re led to the meat grinder

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

If a private company has to succeed, it has to offer things ** that normies want.** FB/G is shit because this is what normies consume - the ego-display, the dopamine kick. In every enshittification of a service, there is a history of it being cravingly indulged by the mass. Now when the companies started rising up and used their monopoly, they (the normies) are realizing they have been shit-eating for a long time. One may argue the companies were not so in the beginning, but that would be a very myopic view.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Normally it wouldn’t be, but these sheep were told “Do not go to this farm or you will be cooked.” and responded with “Pffft, that’ll happen to the other guy…” or “Pfft you’re just whining because you expect everything just handed to you”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

But they weren’t led. They were convinced by big tech. But in the end they choose to go into the meat grinder themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

But they weren’t led. They were convinced by…

Same difference man

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Normies”? Seriously?

Because “normies” are responsible for the entshitification of the Internet right?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

As much as I loathe that term, it could be argued that they indirectly are.

The massive increase in the amount of people online made it profitable for companies to be online. Lack of regulations and the inability for regulators to keep up with technological advancements allowed companies to maximize profits at the expense of everything else. The complete inability of government to prevent monetary influence on legislature has prevented good regulations from developing. The fact that the average person online uses maybe five websites in total and doesn’t engage further means that most issues fly under the radar of the average person, which limits the ability of any significant amount of constituents to pressure the politicians supposedly representing them to do better, and limits the overall impact of any movement away from shitty sites to better ones.

It’s a tangled yarn ball, but one that would struggle to exist without a majority of people to pull money from who just do not care about any of the shit that people more deeply invested in the internet care about.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Honestly, I see your argument. I don’t fully agree with it, but thank you for enlightening me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They’re also trying to wiretap the whole thing… pay attention to EVERYTHING that’s in a bill, not just the clickbait stuff you agree with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
168 points

Every tech article I read nowadays I feel like has the appendix, “which is illegal in the EU.” Lol

permalink
report
reply
107 points

The only thing still preventing mayhem along with California

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Fuck yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. California is the only reason we don’t have products giving insta-cancer ect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
128 points

Cool, so YouTube will start putting pop ups that require you to consent to the detection in order to watch videos. That’s what everyone did with the whole cookies thing when that was determined to be illegal without consent.

permalink
report
reply
71 points

that would be illegal too, because that information is not strictly necessary for their service - they could only opt to not provide the service in the eu

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

I don’t agree. They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model, so it is necessary to advertise. Therefore it is necessary for them to block access to those blocking advertising. The directive cited isn’t intended to make advertiser supported services effectively illegal in the EU. That would be a massive own goal. It’s intended to make deceptive and unnecessary data collection illegal. Nothing YouTube is doing is deceptive. They’re being very clear about their intention to advertise to non-subscribers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They can reasonably argue that advertising is a requirement of their business model,

Couldn’t that claim be countered by pointing out that they already deploy a for pay approach called youtube premium?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

There are multiple French websites that do this. It is legal (otherwise these websites would not do this anymore, it’s been a while).
There is a popup asking you if you consent to get cookies (for advertisement). If you say “no”, it leads you to another popup with two choices :

  • Change your decision and accept cookies
  • Pay for a premium service without advertisements
permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points
*

That is just because the people who enforce the EDPB guidelines just haven’t come around to fining those websites.

That practice is still illegal.

Want to speed up the process? You can report those websites. The more reports the faster those get punished.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Same in Germany and Switzerland. I just close the site immediately when I see this kind of blackmailing. Or use 12ft.io if I absolutely want to read the article.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Nothing more fun than having to go through some websites shitty settings to toggle everything off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

I can heartily recommend Consent-O-Matic. I’d say that it’s able to clear (and reject by default) the cookie warnings on 95% of the sites I visit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

ublock does it too if you enable the “block annoyances” option in the settings

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Duckduckgo browser does it too

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Still a curveball. Collecting your data and having to say ot to your face are not the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Would be a shame if your answer to that consent question was not saved and would be required to answer each time you open up a video.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

which you could get around by using another frontend for youtube or just going with vlc all the way by playing the url in vlc directly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

A lot of the cookie notifications can’t collect data until you accept them (or follow their annoying “opt-out” workflow). If you install UBlock Origin and go to its settings > ‘Filter lists’ and enable the “EasyList - Cookie Notices” you can block a lot of cookies. If they can never nag you and you never opt in, assuming they’re following the law, you shouldn’t be tracked.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 567K

    Comments