this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
1716 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

60075 readers
3572 users here now

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


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whileloop@lemmy.world 129 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

If I understand correctly, there's nothing about Firefox that makes ad blockers any harder to detect. What can Firefox and uBlock do to stop Google from blocking adblock users on the site?

That said, I use Firefox and uBlock myself, and I've yet to see YouTube stop me from using the site.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 114 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They don’t care about Firefox. Chrome is the browser market, they have weakened extensions, they implemented DRM, and here we are.

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 144 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Coming to you later… “Your browser violates YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This would become an Anti trust suit I would imagine.

[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They can just phrase it a little differently and argue semantics in front of a bunch of 70 year olds who don't know what a browser is in a hearing or two. Maybe a couple campaign contributions through completely legal channels and that's that. Anti trust enforcement has been falling in the US for decades.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am cautiously optimistic of that new gal heading the FTC, she's preparing suits I to Amazon and Google, so we'll see how that goes

[–] callyral@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could use an extension that changes your user agent but I'm not sure how well that'd work

[–] danielton@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have control of Chrome, so they could always implement some kind of API into Chrome to check.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

C-C-C-C-Conflict of interest!

[–] danielton@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everybody thought this was OK because Chromium is open-source.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And that may help if a group of developers decide to fork it in their own direction.

[–] danielton@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, but most people will still use Google Chrome, and good luck getting Microsoft and Opera to switch to the fork. Google will still have full control over Chrome, and the layperson won't understand why a browser that looks the same as Chrome but doesn't work with Google's sites is better.

That's the issue.

[–] intelati@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

Laughs in useragent switch

[–] DrQuint@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They're TRYING, but for now, it would be a user agent extension matter.

[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter if YouTube can detect uBlock. The great thing about uBlock is you can just block the anti-adblock script. Since Javascript is executed on the user's computer, it's trivial to just tell your computer to ignore it. And moving it to server side would cost them too much money in processing power.

That's why they want everyone to adopt their DRM, so they don't have to worry about it.

[–] PeachMan@lemmy.one 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This logic is so flawed lol. It's also completely trivial for them to detect when their anti-adblock script has been blocked. If it gets blocked, then they can just stop serving you videos.

There are websites that already do this; it's not theoretical. The website just doesn't work if it detects an adblocker.

[–] Zikeji@programming.dev 25 points 1 year ago

Whether or not it's trivial to detect depends on the method used to block it. It already is an arms race, and said race will continue.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Ok but do they know we know they know we know they know?!

[–] AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

OK, show us an example. I've never run across a website that adblockers just didn't work on, but maybe you know of one. Give us an example, and we'll see if we can bypass that. Then we'll know which of us understands how Javascript works, and which doesn't.

[–] Goodie@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Firefox currently enjoys protection from being "relatively niche" in the browser market (aka not Chromium based trash).

But if I had to place a bet on which browser would put effort in to protecting your privacy, including which extensions are installed, my bet would be on Firefox over Chrome.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

i think it's mainly the list maintainers staying on-the-ball with changes to sites. they can move quicker than a giant corporation can develop, test, and roll-out potentially site-breaking changes that could adversely affect 'billions' of users.

[–] Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It has always been my understanding that uBlock and uBlock Origin were two totally different extensions for ad blocking. Is this not correct? Back several year ago when ad blockers were new, I recall seeing two different Firefox listings for them, and people would caution users to get uBlock Origin and not the other truncated named one

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ublock fucked the creator who made ublock origin

[–] Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am assuming that is metaphorical?

[–] SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Yes, it is metamorphical lol. Gorhill is the creator of both uBlock and uBlock Origin. However, he gave the uBlock github repo to another dev, who sold it to adblock plus. Do not download uBlock.

However, he did fork uBlock and continued to develop his own version, now named uBlock Origin. Do download uBlock Origin.

PSA: ublock.org is not related to uBlock Origin.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The difference is Firefox is not a chromium based browser and thus not subject to googles fucking bullshit, esp when we come to things like web drm

[–] igorlogius@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

What can Firefox and uBlock do to stop Google from blocking adblock users on the site

Not sure if you question is serious ... but just in case, Mozilla is one of the few non-profit orgs that is fighting for an open web

ref. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

and uBlock Origin can literally work its magic because firefox provides the necessary APIs that allows it to work. (old ref. but AFAIK still relevant: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox)