Technology YouTube tests ways to stop ad blockers: what to expect

vtqhtr413

Level 27
Thread author
Well-known
Aug 17, 2017
1,609

Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.

YouTube recently took dramatic action against anyone visiting its site with an ad blocker running — after a few pieces of content, it'll simply stop serving you videos. If you want to get past the wall, that ad blocker will (probably) need to be turned off; and if you want an ad-free experience, better cough up a couple bucks for a Premium subscription.

Although this is an aggressive move that seemingly left ad blocking companies scrambling to respond, it didn’t come out the blue — YouTube had been testing something similar for months. And even before this most recent clampdown, the Google-owned video service has been engaged in an ongoing conflict — a game of cat-and-mouse, an arms race, pick your metaphor — with ad-blocking software: YouTube rolls out new ways to serve ads to viewers with ad blockers, then ad blockers develop new strategies to circumvent those ad-serving measures.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 82
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Apr 24, 2016
7,199

Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.


Even against those odds, ad block diehards aren't dissuaded in their mission. As Meshkov put it bluntly: “YouTube’s policy is just a good motivation to do it better.”
(y)
At least one popular ad blocker, AdBlock Plus, won’t be trying to get around YouTube’s wall at all. Vergard Johnsen, chief product officer at AdBlock Plus developer eyeo, said he respects YouTube’s decision to start “a conversation” with users about how content gets monetized.
:eek:
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
Referencing the now independently run Acceptable Ads program (which eyeo created and participates in), Johnsen said, “the vast majority of our users have really embraced the fact that there will be ads [...] we’ve made it clear we don’t believe in circumvention.”
Except YouTube ads fall foul of Acceptable Ads criteria:
The following types of ads are currently unacceptable and cannot be considered for inclusion on the allowlist:
  • Autoplay-sound or video ads
  • Overlay in-video ads
  • Pre-roll video ads
Eyeo's cheating its users here. They can't claim to adhere to the Acceptable Ads Standard yet refuse to block ads because it's against some undisclosed company ethos.
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
Then what's even the point of that extension?
Force ad networks to serve non-intrusive ads in exchange for monetizing their users. Essentially they want to serve as a middle ground between no blocking and all-out blocking. Which would be commendable if they addressed more than just obnoxious ad formats (arguably the least important issue plaguing online advertising), and their business model wasn't so scummy.
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
I'm unsure if I fully comprehend the debate here. Is there any issue with the acceptable ads standard?
If the only thing (and I do mean the only thing) you care about is seeing less annoying ads outside of YouTube, then no, there isn't an issue with Acceptable Ads (AA).
If you're against being tracked or opening yourself up to infection via malvertising, then AA should be avoided (there is a non-tracking list for AA, but it's practically empty save for first-party ads and requires Do Not Track to be enabled, which opens you up to more effective fingerprinting).

Then there's eyeo (developed AA, acts on behalf of the AA committee, and owns Adblock Plus), who has an extremely controversial business model (demands payment from AA participants that reach 10 million ad impressions per month. Refusing to pay results in participants being removed from the program and subsequently having all their ads blocked), and whom is now refusing to circumvent YouTube's anti-adblock measures even though YouTube ads are deemed "unacceptable" by the AA criteria.

Hopefully that explains it all. Ultimately if you don't use Adblock or Adblock Plus, you don't have to care.
 
Last edited:

vtqhtr413

Level 27
Thread author
Well-known
Aug 17, 2017
1,609
Over the past couple of months, a new breed of extensions has emerged to deal with YouTube's ever increasing arsenal of ads. These extensions don't block advertisement on YouTube like traditional content blockers. Instead, they use a different technology to manipulate the ad video stream.

The three core changes are mute, skip and fast forward. Mute turns off the volume, so that ads don't play any sound anymore. The extensions unmute immediately once the actual video starts playing. Then, depending on how the ad is served, these ads are either skipped entirely or fast forwarded.

Ad Speedup is the third extension of this new breed of extensions that I review here on this site (there is also a userscript called Remove Adblock Thing which does the same) The first, Skip and Fast-Forward YouTube ads, was turned into a paid extension unfortunately by its developer. Then came Ad Accelerator, which offered similar functionality.
 

partha_roy

Level 3
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
122
If yt blocks ad blockers on their site, and a middle ground is being sought, how can it be cheating on eyeo's part? The way I see it, it will help synergize all the parties, eventually required to drive this ecosystem

Whether or not the YouTube ads violate the AA standard is an entirely separate issue; the concern here is yt downright blocking the ad blockers
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
If yt blocks ad blockers on their site, and a middle ground is being sought, how can it be cheating on eyeo's part?
A middle ground isn't being sought on YouTube. Eyeo is simply refusing to do what's necessary to block ads on YouTube. They're taking an ideological stance that contradicts their started intent (namely: we'll block ads by those who aren't AA participants and ads by AA participants that violate the criteria).
the concern here is yt downright blocking the ad blockers
I mean, yeah, it sucks. The amount of ads YouTube laces videos with is ridiculous, but I'm of the opinion that YouTube's free to implement whatever anti-adblock measures they want on their website, just as I'm of the opinion that ad block developers and/or filter list maintainers are free to circumvent any measures YouTube takes.
 

partha_roy

Level 3
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
122
A middle ground isn't being sought on YouTube. Eyeo is simply refusing to do what's necessary to block ads on YouTube. They're taking an ideological stance that contradicts their started intent (namely: we'll block ads by those who aren't AA participants and ads by AA participants that violate the criteria).
but it can only block ads on a site if the site's logic/source code does not obstruct the ad blocker
 
  • Like
Reactions: vtqhtr413

partha_roy

Level 3
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
122
but I'm of the opinion that YouTube's free to implement whatever anti-adblock measures they want on their website, just as I'm of the opinion that ad block developers and/or filter list maintainers are free to circumvent any measures YouTube takes.
I understand what you are saying, but for a relatively large adblocking org like eyeo to circumvent through measures that may be illegal can have serious repercussions and I am sure they would be considering that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and vtqhtr413

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
but it can only block ads on a site if the site's logic/source code does not obstruct the ad blocker
The obstruction is easily circumvented. uBlock Origin's filters are constantly being updated to do so. Eyeo is just refusing to do the same.
may be illegal can have serious repercussions
It's not illegal though. Eyeo themselves have won time after time after time against various lawsuits (17 in total) attempting to have ad blocking or its underlying functionality declared unlawful. The only repercussion that I can think of is Google removing itself from the AA program (their search ads meet the criteria), resulting in eyeo losing a presumably substantial source of income.
 
Last edited:

partha_roy

Level 3
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
122
Eyeo themselves have won time after time after time against various lawsuits (17 in total) attempting to have ad blocking or its underlying functionality declared unlawful. The only repercussion that I can think of is Google removing itself from the AA program (their search ads meet the criteria), resulting in eyeo losing its biggest source of income.
As the decision maker of a company, would you willingly risk losing your largest clients and subsequently becoming entangled in other unfavorable dynamics that would eventually follow?
The obstruction is easily circumvented. uBlock Origin's filters are constantly being updated to do so. Eyeo is just refusing to do the same.

It's not illegal though. Eyeo themselves have won time after time after time against various lawsuits (17 in total) attempting to have ad blocking or its underlying functionality declared unlawful. The only repercussion that I can think of is Google removing itself from the AA program (their search ads meet the criteria), resulting in eyeo losing a presumably substantial source of income.
Circumvention is possible, but would it be a wise move?
 

partha_roy

Level 3
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
122
Look, from my perspective, there is a significant risk involved if one of the top adblockers decides to engage in aggressive adblocking without taking into account yt's business model.
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
As the decision maker of a company, would you willingly risk losing your largest clients and subsequently becoming entangled in other unfavorable dynamics that would eventually follow?
Probably not, but I'd like to think I wouldn't create an ad blocking company that's potentially dependent on the world's biggest advertising company for it's financial security. That'd be a blatant conflict of interest.
Look, from my perspective, there is a significant risk involved if one of the top adblockers decides to engage in aggressive adblocking without taking into account yt's business model.
Why? It's not eyeo's job to protect YouTube's revenue stream.

Look it's cool if you think that there should be some kind of middle ground (I personally have nothing against advertising as a business model, just the baggage that comes with it), but eyeo is being categorically misleading here. They're breaking the agreement they have with their users by refusing to do what they literally advertise they do, then justifying it with moral grandstanding and erroneous claims. There's a reason there's such a furore over YouTube attempting to ban ad blockers: users consider YouTube ads inherently annoying, and I've no doubt eyeo's products will lose users if they continue to capitulate.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top