this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
955 points (97.8% liked)

memes

9948 readers
3029 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 103 points 5 days ago (4 children)

It's so weird that YouTube is their second most profitable venture after adsense. It's like they thought, we have a virtual monopoly on internet ads, Internet video, and web browsers. Let's combine their power to make people watch non stop ads while tracking them worse than the CIA. Then, let's be very surprised when people don't like us and we get hit with antitrust lawsuits. Fuck Google.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 49 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Google went from don't be evil to fuck you all.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 61 points 5 days ago (1 children)

To put it shortly: "Went public".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 150 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those will block server-side ads.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 57 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Isn't there some law that you have to visually indicate whether a given piece of content is sponsored (ad) or not? Can't that just be detected by ad blockers to skip/hide ads?

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 36 points 5 days ago (2 children)

There isn't a law that I'm aware of, but typically the ad needs to be un-skippable/seek-able, which means there will always be some indication to the video player of what the user can skip or fast forward through.

That doesn't mean Google couldn't just make fast forwarding/seeking a premium feature, but they'd lose a lot of user appeal if they did so they probably wouldn't do that

[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Germany has this law, sponsored segments must be clearly labelled. But one could just hash the ad anyways or just try to fast forward and if it doesn't work and it would be the ad.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 10 points 5 days ago

I used to have a neat app on my phone that would play "Interdimensional Cable" bits, or just silence, over Spotify ads. It made it a lot more usable.

Their ad gets played, I don't have to hear it screaming at me. Win/Win right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 30 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure about the mechanism, but isn't this the same thing as ancient early DVR's like TiVo that would record from the cable stream and omit the ads segments?

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's the thing, I don't think the mechanism exists (or works) yet. I'm confident it will someday, but I didn't think it worked yet.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You can adblock twitch, I assume it wouldn't be too different from that

[–] Squiddlioni@kbin.melroy.org 23 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Twitch (and YouTube currently) switches to a new content stream to play an ad, which is easy to detect and block in an extension. If I understand the tech correctly, server side ads would be stitched into the playing content stream. The extension would have to know the content of the video to know that an ad is playing. There are some clever ways that might be caught (looking for spikes in bitrate, volume differences, etc), but none of that currently exists in the software in the OP.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You can click on the ad right? Detect that.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 9 points 5 days ago

Let's assume you can use that to determine the beginning of an ad, how do you know how much to skip?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 22 points 5 days ago (4 children)

IIRC, Twitch uses similar ad injection. Ad blockers get around it by opening new video streams until they find one that isn't running an ad. Could be wrong though, I'm parroting an uncited comment.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 60 points 5 days ago

The mom should be Firefox and the kids the plugins.

[–] tomatolung@sopuli.xyz 64 points 5 days ago (4 children)

What's funny to me is how they are in a fight for their company with the FTC, and they want to continue provoking people by increasing their revenue on the back of their users on a service they might have a technical monopoly on? Hmmmm...

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 17 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Provoking people and in dispute with FTC don’t relate but if the FTC broke them up then you would really regret not cashing in while you could

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (16 children)

The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes its primary use, music, pointless to me.

Another issue is Pandora, they keep forcing mobile site on Desktop User Agent setting and I work too many hours to go in and change the identifiers needed to make it work. Their app is busted as well, it asks for permissions and will semi-frequently crash when I dont give them permissions.

The whole internets basically becoming shit because of corporate incompetence. Not even willful malice, just idiocy.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

That's because they want you to pay a subscription fee for YouTube music.

For the Pandora app, they don't want you using it if you don't give them permission to do whatever it is they want to do.

It is malicious. It's often incompetence too, but it's also malicious.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 26 points 5 days ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 31 points 5 days ago (4 children)

The problem is when they start doing in stream ads, that will require something new. That said, people have been doing that with cable for a while, it'll be real interesting to see what clever stuff comes out to detect them in stream

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago

Audio is stupidly easy to fingerprint and identify. It would be glorious if we used the very same dumbass technology to identify ad segments as they use to robo-copyright-claim creators for including a 11 second snippet of a radio ad that's period authentic to the historical media they're reviewing. Just take that shit and turn it right against them.

[–] psoul@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I assume something similar to sponsor block, some algorithm to identify ad segments and some user feedback to confirm. Unless I’m mistaken as to how sponsor block works?

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Sponser block works via user input

People will watch the videos, report the segments that are sponser slots, and then when people watch the video they can upvote or downvote the accuracy of the report.

In stream ads would be a hard one to tackle because YouTube would likely inject them randomly into the stream to boost engagement (readas, prevent people skipping them easily).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 days ago

This is something that would be a surprisingly good use case for machine learning. Fingerprint the ads by watching ahead in the stream, then skip that section.

Actually, I think older algorithmic methods will work. I think that’s how TiVo worked. The annoying part is you’ll have to wait a bit at the start of the video.

[–] lohky@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (11 children)

It'll require a new mother fucking video platform. We need to just collectively let YouTube die and move on.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] archonet@lemy.lol 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

not pictured: the pihole just out of frame, holding a shotgun

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 36 points 5 days ago (2 children)

??? Pihole never blocked YouTube ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MikeOxlong@lemm.ee 15 points 5 days ago (2 children)

How do you use Pihole to block YouTube ads?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 47 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Block youtube.com. Quite effective, if you ask me.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Peertube is holding the folded chair ready for action

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago (13 children)

I am not for ads but what is so difficult about adding them to the video stream. This should make adblockers useless since they can't differentiate between the video and the ad. I could just imagine it would be difficult to track the view time of the user and this could make the view useless since they can't prove it to the ad customer. I have no in depth knowledge about hls but as I know it's an index file with urls to small fragments of the streamed file. The index file could be regenerated with inserted ad parts and randomized times to make blocking specific video segments useless.

[–] Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org 13 points 4 days ago (4 children)

You would also have to make skipping to any point in the video impossible then as folks could just jump ahead until they are past the embedded ad.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Twitch already does this for their livestreams and has been doing it for years. I'm just surprised that YouTube has taken this long to get around to injecting advertisements into the video stream. Although I think if YouTube decided to try ad injection the adblocking community would fire back with something novel to thwart their efforts and the eternal arms race would continue.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago (5 children)

I worked at a video ad server that offered a stream stitched solution going back to 2013. It comes down to development work/cost that the companies need to take on. Ultimately they would benefit from the cost required, but they wanted to be cheap and do a client side solution instead.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)
[–] Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's something like a cleaver, so it's got a blunt tip that looks like it's going through her blouse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] purrtastic@lemmy.nz 12 points 5 days ago

This is just wrong. None of those will prevent server side ads.

[–] RigshawRick@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

It works really well, I want to support them and donate but I'm afraid YouTube will find a way to block them like they did to others...

load more comments
view more: next ›