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

memes

9961 readers
1729 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
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hjjanger@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The picture missed Google's hand of money paying Firefox

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 154 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 59 points 1 week ago (4 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 1 week 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 1 week 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)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week 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 17 points 1 week ago (7 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week 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)
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 105 points 1 week 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 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] MonkeMischief 61 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To put it shortly: "Went public".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tomatolung@sopuli.xyz 65 points 1 week 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 1 week 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)
[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 60 points 1 week ago

The mom should be Firefox and the kids the plugins.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 32 points 1 week ago (16 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 23 points 1 week ago (4 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 (4 replies)
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] archonet@lemy.lol 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago (2 children)

??? Pihole never blocked YouTube ads.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MikeOxlong@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How do you use Pihole to block YouTube ads?

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 48 points 1 week 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 1 week ago (3 children)

Peertube is holding the folded chair ready for action

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] purrtastic@lemmy.nz 12 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›