Experimental Youtube "feature" detects and blocks some users of ad blocking browser extensions on Youtube

[grg994]

Summary

Quote

Google has announced that it has begun experimenting with a feature that blocks users who have an ad blocker enabled on YouTube. The pop-up mentions that those that are using an ad blocker will not be allowed to watch videos on the platform unless they enable ads on YouTube or subscribe to YouTube Premium.

 

 

Quotes

Quote

Asked for comment, a Google spokesperson told IGN that it was a "small experiment."

"We're running a small experiment globally that urges viewers with ad blockers enabled to allow ads on YouTube or try YouTube Premium," they said via email.

"Ad blocker detection is not new, and other publishers regularly ask viewers to disable ad blockers."

 

My thoughts

Most adblock extensions will most likely successfully develop and deploy anti-adblock circumventing measures for Youtube as it is done for many websites already.

 

But more importantly I would like to note that Google Chrome is planning to remove support for a some browser extension APIs (Manifest V2 / eg. webRequest API) which are necessary for more sophisticated adblocking techniques, including the ones which are used in anti-adblock circumvention.

Currently Manifest V2 support removal is indefinitely postponed (due to design issues mostly unrelated to adblocking-related API things), but once it happens Google will have much better ability to enforce adblock prohibition on Youtube at least for Chrome users.

 

Sources

https://www.ign.com/articles/google-responds-to-reports-of-ad-blockers-being-banned-on-youtube

[TempestCatto]

Just now, grg994 said:

Most adblock extensions will most likely successfully develop and deploy anti-adblock circumventing measures for Youtube as it is done for many websites already.

Yep. Game of cat and mouse - Tom and Jerry. It will never end. 

[Fasterthannothing]

I had a feeling this was coming. I noticed YouTube doesn't work very well with brave browser anymore. Sometimes I'll just see a black screen when trying to play a video and as soon as turn of the brave blocker it works.

[Quackers101]

ads getting worse anyways. soon to add even more ads.
I mean some platforms are already adware, even if paid for.

[OhioYJ]

If a site doesn't work with ad blockers I just leave. 

 

All I see this doing is creating a increase in YouTube piracy. 

[Arika]

i get this pop up, but clicking the x in the top right or clicking "enable ads" closed the popup and lets the video play without actually changing anything.

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, grg994 said:

But more importantly I would like to note that Google Chrome is planning to remove support for a some browser extension APIs (Manifest V2 / eg. webRequest API) which are necessary for more sophisticated adblocking techniques, including the ones which are used in anti-adblock circumvention.

Currently Manifest V2 support removal is indefinitely postponed (due to design issues mostly unrelated to adblocking-related API things), but once it happens Google will have much better ability to enforce adblock prohibition on Youtube at least for Chrome users.

Once that happens i will just stop use Chrome based browsers.

I am already ready to jump ship to Firefox

4 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i get this pop up, but clicking the x in the top right or clicking "enable ads" closed the popup and lets the video play without actually changing anything.

Anyway, That popup can be easily blocked with a script blocker of your choosing.

[starsmine]

I dont know why people expect free services that cost money to serve you. to not just be free, but ad-free. 

Youtube has never been egregious with ads, some creators sure, but not youtube itself, and premium is cheap.

[OhioYJ]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I dont know why people expect free services that cost money to serve you. to not just be free, but ad-free. 

Youtube has never been egregious with ads, some creators sure, but not youtube itself, and premium is cheap.

There is a way to do advertisements without them being obnoxious, possibly serving malware, etc. 

 

Second while it does cost money to serve content, until you are the size of "YouTube" the cost is pretty minimal really.  I've operated my website for almost 20 years without the need for ads. 

[GhostRoadieBL]

I'm not sure if this will come back and bite them when regulations finally catch up to tech companies. Surely there are only a few more years of house mp's who barely know how to use email or are still without cell phones.

It's long overdue for a younger generation to take control of the regulators and start pushing back against denial of services if you don't use a platform exactly how the advertising company wants you to.

[Vishera]

48 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I dont know why people expect free services that cost money to serve you. to not just be free, but ad-free. 

Youtube has never been egregious with ads, some creators sure, but not youtube itself, and premium is cheap.

There are genuinely valid reasons to use ad-blockers outside the "ads are annoying",

Such as "Ads serve you malware" and "Ads have trackers embedded in them".

As matter of fact the FBI is recommending people to use ad-blockers to protect them from malware and malicious websites.

Also some ad-blockers block trackers as well, which is pretty good for your privacy.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

There are genuinely valid reasons to use ad-blockers outside the "ads are annoying",

Such as "Ads serve you malware" and "Ads have trackers embedded in them".

As matter of fact the FBI is recommending people to use ad-blockers to protect them from malware and malicious websites.

Also some ad-blockers block trackers as well, which is pretty good for your privacy.

There is no legitimate reason to block ads on a site that isn't a garbage site. Block ads on garbage sites, because those are sites peddle in stolen content anyway. Blocking ads on youtube is just being a spiteful jerk.

[williamcll]

Hopefully UBO with all filters turned on clears this. It has so far worked on a lot of other anti-adblockers.

 

Not even if youtube bake in Ads like LTTStore.com can stop my adblocks when I install sponsorblock.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

I'm not sure if this will come back and bite them when regulations finally catch up to tech companies. Surely there are only a few more years of house mp's who barely know how to use email or are still without cell phones.

It's long overdue for a younger generation to take control of the regulators and start pushing back against denial of services if you don't use a platform exactly how the advertising company wants you to.

That is a very entitlist attitude.  The thought that you should somehow be entitled to view YouTube videos ad free, and they shouldn't be allowed to stop you (despite them having a paid option where it removes the ad).

 

They should have every right to deny people service if they don't purchase for ad-free or are using an ad-blocker.

 

It's no different than those people who stole cable at that point.  In makes it worse for people who don't use ad-block on YouTube actually because then YouTube needs to find more ways to gain a revenue stream which means an accerlation of longer ads/more ads etc

 

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

There are genuinely valid reasons to use ad-blockers outside the "ads are annoying",

Just because there are valid reasons doesn't justify using it for sites like YouTube where you don't get displayed those types of ads.

 

6 hours ago, grg994 said:

Most adblock extensions will most likely successfully develop and deploy anti-adblock circumventing measures for Youtube as it is done for many websites already.

I think this will be interesting what Google does regarding this.  While it's true that ad blockers could implement a circumvention, at what point does it start crossing the lines in regards to copyright infringement or creating tools that intentionally bypass contracts.

[AlTech]

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

I dont know why people expect free services that cost money to serve you. to not just be free, but ad-free. 

Youtube has never been egregious with ads, some creators sure, but not youtube itself, and premium is cheap.

YouTube rn with ADs for a video that's longer than 5 minutes is almost unwatchable.

 

Premium is £12 per month. I would hardly call that cheap when it costs only £7 (£2 extra) to remove ADs from Netflix.

 

Also a lot of the ADs on YT are creepy AF.

[LAwLz]

I have from time to time considered paying for YouTube premium since I watch quite a lot of it. But since every video nowadays is full of ads that don't go away with premium (in-video ads) I feel like I'd still have to use extensions or third party clients to block those, and at that point I might as well block all ads to begin with. 

[Mihle]

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

I dont know why people expect free services that cost money to serve you. to not just be free, but ad-free. 

Youtube has never been egregious with ads, some creators sure, but not youtube itself, and premium is cheap.

Actually one thing I have noticed is that even tho I do not block ads on YouTube (but have blocked trackers) when logged in and everything is normal, I get ads at the start and stuff, but not super much or anything. But once I open a video in private browser, I get like 3x the amount of ads, or at least 2x and it's too much.

[Senzelian]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But since every video nowadays is full of ads that don't go away with premium (in-video ads)

Which ads? I have been using Premium now for over a year and have never seen a single ad served by YT.

[HenrySalayne]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

despite them having a paid option where it removes the ad

This is not correct. There is no paid Youtube option. You can only get a bundle with Google's music streaming service and Youtube without ads. For example, Spotify users have to subsidise a second music streaming service just to watch Youtube without ads. That's not only stupid, it might also be a case for the EU.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is not correct. There is no paid Youtube option. You can only get a bundle with Google's music streaming service and Youtube without ads. For example, Spotify users have to subsidise a second music streaming service just to watch Youtube without ads. That's not only stupid, it might also be a case for the EU.

In some countries, including Sweden where I live, Youtube offers a "YouTube Premium Lite" tier that only removes ads on YouTube and nothing else.

It's 7 Euro for Premium Lite, and 12 Euro for the full YouTube Premium subscription (downloading, YouTube Music, background playback, etc).

It seems like it, for some reason, is not available everywhere. Maybe it will roll out to other countries in the future. Perhaps in combination with blocking access for those using adblockers.

 

  

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Which ads? I have been using Premium now for over a year and have never seen a single ad served by YT.

The ads that the creators put into the video themselves, often called "sponsor spots".

I want to get rid of those ads too, and YouTube Premium do not remove those. I need to use for example a third-party client like YouTube Vanced (RIP) to get rid of those. If I am already going to need to use third-party clients and extensions like SponsorBlock, Return YouTube Dislike and such, I might as well just use them to block ads too.

 

If YouTube Premium offered me the same experience as third-party apps did then it would be a much easier pill to swallow.

[Senzelian]

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The ads that the creators put into the video themselves, often called "sponsor spots".

I want to get rid of those ads too, and YouTube Premium do not remove those. I need to use for example a third-party client like YouTube Vanced (RIP) to get rid of those. If I am already going to need to use third-party clients and extensions like SponsorBlock, Return YouTube Dislike and such, I might as well just use them to block ads too.

 

If YouTube Premium offered me the same experience as third-party apps did then it would be a much easier pill to swallow.

Usually any decent creator has timestamps in the video to skip ahead. I don't see that as a problem.

[HenrySalayne]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In some countries, including Sweden where I live, Youtube offers a "YouTube Premium Lite" tier that only removes ads on YouTube and nothing else.

It's 7 Euro for Premium Lite, and 12 Euro for the full YouTube Premium subscription (downloading, YouTube Music, background playback, etc).

Good to know, but without background play it's once again artificially limited. An adblock user has no incentive to switch. And some (if not most) countries don't even have the option.

Youtube is the defacto leading video platform. Gatekeeping YT premium by bundling it with music streaming has obviously the goal to make customers cancel their music streaming service of choice. That's clear anti-consumer behaviour.

It seems like in countries where the customers don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome (ironically Sweden...) and the conversion rate to YT premium is poor, they offer premium lite.

 

It is the same toxic corporate behaviour like Apple's iOS subscription fees just to enforce an unfair disadvantage on the competition.

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Senzelian said:

Usually any decent creator has timestamps in the video to skip ahead. I don't see that as a problem.

I think it is very annoyancing even if they put timestamps in the video.

 

 

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Good to know, but without background play it's once again artificially limited. An adblock user has no incentive to switch. And some (if not most) countries don't even have the option.

Youtube is the defacto leading video platform. Gatekeeping YT premium by bundling it with music streaming has obviously the goal to make customers cancel their music streaming service of choice. That's clear anti-consumer behaviour.

It seems like in countries where the customers don't suffer from Stockholm syndrome (ironically Sweden...) and the conversion rate to YT premium is poor, they offer premium lite.

 

It is the same toxic corporate behaviour like Apple's iOS subscription fees just to enforce an unfair disadvantage on the competition.

I mean, of course it's artificially limited. Youtube without ads is also an "artificial limit" they impose on non-premium users. I don't really think it's bad of them to limit some things to their premium users.

 

I do agree with you about the bundling thing. I think it would be better if they rolled out YouTube Premium Lite everywhere instead of limiting it to a few countries.

But at the same time I can't help but feel like a hypocrite because I am perfectly okay with Amazon bundling a bunch of things with Prime, including their movie streaming service. Maybe it's because that is cheaper and you get so much with it, meanwhile Youtube Premium feels like they are holding the feature people really want hostage behind an entire package. 

 

 

Edit: I just realized Amazon Prime might be an amazing deal in Sweden.

I looked up the pricing of Amazon Prime in the US and it says 15 dollars a month, or 9 dollars per month for Prime video alone.

In Sweden I can pay 6 dollars a month for Amazon Prime, and that includes Prime video.

Maybe I am missing something and Sweden is missing out on some other Amazon Prime stuff that the US gets, but if those pricings are correct I pay less for Prime (free shipping, exclusive deals, Twitch perks, and Prime video) than the US pays for Prime Video alone.

[Spotty]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

There is no legitimate reason to block ads on a site that isn't a garbage site. Block ads on garbage sites, because those are sites peddle in stolen content anyway. Blocking ads on youtube is just being a spiteful jerk.

I disagree. There are malicious advertisements displayed on legitimate, trustworthy websites. Both Google and Bing search results will display advertisements for phishing websites at the top of the results. Facebook will display ads for scam websites and scam products. Like @Vishera mentioned there was even a notice posted by the FBI to use an adblock when using search engines because of the advertisements being served for phishing websites. https://linustechtips.com/topic/1480218-fbi-recomends-adblock/

 

If you don't want to use an adblocker or think it's immoral to use one you're definitely entitled to your opinion, however I don't think it's reasonable to say that there's absolutely no legitimate reason to use one and that legitimate websites won't serve bad ads when it's known that even the largest ad networks (Google, Microsoft, Facebook) have problems with malicious advertisements.

[jagdtigger]

And the whack-a-mole begins......