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

[vtqhtr413]

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.

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers

YouTube's dramatic content gatekeeping decisions of late have a long history behind them, and there's an equally long history of these defenses being bypassed.

www.engadget.com

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

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

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers

YouTube's dramatic content gatekeeping decisions of late have a long history behind them, and there's an equally long history of these defenses being bypassed.

www.engadget.com

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.”

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.

 

[Arequire]

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.

 

[Sammo]

I use NewPipe on my phone for ad free Youtube

 

[nicolaasjan]

“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.”

Then what's even the point of that extension?

I propose a new name:
Adblock Minus

I guess YouTube paid them a lot for this...

 

[Arequire]

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.

 

[partha_roy]

I'm unsure if I fully comprehend the debate here. Is there any issue with the acceptable ads standard?

 

[nicolaasjan]

Is there any issue with the acceptable ads standard?

Perhaps not with the idea itself, though in my opinion every add is unacceptable, since they come with tracking, which I despise.

The issue here is, that YouTube's ads do not comply with the Acceptable Ads criteria.

 

[Arequire]

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.

 

[Jan Willy]

there is a non-tracking list for AA,

A very nice list if you remove @@

 

[partha_roy]

Perhaps not with the idea itself, though in my opinion every add is unacceptable, since they come with tracking, which I despise.

The issue here is, that YouTube's ads do not comply with the Acceptable Ads criteria.

But if yt doesn't participate in their program, is it really fair to blame ABP?

 

[vtqhtr413]

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.

Ad Speedup: mute, skip and fast forward ads on YouTube - gHacks Tech News

Ad Speedup is a browser extension that mutes, skips and fast forwards any advertisement that you may encounter on YouTube.

www.ghacks.net

 

[partha_roy]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[partha_roy]

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

 

[Arequire]

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.

 

[partha_roy]

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]

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]

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.