• sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is a whole topic in wasm called server side rendered DOM.

    I hardly think there is a chance to block adds when they achieve it to render all the content on their side.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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

    • PSoul•Lemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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).

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          if they were randomly placed, then couldnt you have a sponsor-block type system where instead of the ad segments being marked and skipped, information about the video is externally stored somewhere (like perhaps a really low res screenshot of the video every couple seconds, or some number generated algorithmically by a frame of video), and the results should be the same for all users for the actual video part, but if the ads are placed randomly, the ad section will suddenly not match the data other users had, prompting the video to skip until it matches again (with a buffer included if they remove the ability to move forward)

          • Kushan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            You don’t need anything so complicated.

            Take two copies of the same video, diff them and only keep the parts that match.

            We can also build up a database of as signatures to automatically identify them without requiring a watermark - we already have the technology to do this for detecting intro sequences for skipping.

        • 42Firehawk@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          In that case the ads are video only, no clicking on them, including to skip or anything else. So it would be detecting that trying to change where you are in the video doesn’t change anything (and exclusively playing via your 3 second buffer)

    • lohky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

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

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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.

  • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    tbh if they do server side ads I’d be glad knowing that it costs them too much that they should be glad they’re not losing money by ads, which I think they will.

      • USSMojave@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I love how people will complain about ads on YouTube and then go on to complain that PeerTube sucks because “who’s going to pay the hosting fees?” 🙄 For the record I like PeerTube but Android clients are ass right now

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That’s not my biggest complaint. The problem is it isn’t being pushed forward. It needs some serious work to even be remotely compared to YouTube.

          It is getting better but I don’t think the current leadership is agrees I’ve enough. I’d like to see it move to its own legal entity with dedicated budgeting. They need to raise some serious money to get competitive. Developers are expensive but they do much better work than a few French guys.

  • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • kaotic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I don’t know this for sure, but I feel like this is something you can do with freetube. Regardless, it’s worth looking into.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t like using apps to start with tbh, 100% pass on that. Installing random software to phones should never have become so commonplace.

        • scutiger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree. We have mobile web sites for just about everything. Apps should really only be for when the requirements are too complex for a website. Webapps are probably convenient alternative for most apps.

          Hell, I can do my banking on the mobile site, so why do I need to install an app and share my phone’s contacts and precise location? Why does it need to access my phone’s storage and sensors and ability to make calls?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I use an app for local banking because the encryption is a little better and there is potential for browser addons to view the page data, but TBH I wouldn’t trust a Wells Fargo or US Bank app lol.

            • scutiger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I run GrapheneOS, so I can more explicitly set permissions and scopes, but the app won’t run without all the permissions enabled, so I won’t use it.

              The only thing the app can do that the website can’t is deposit checks with a picture, and considering how rarely I use checks, it’s not something I need an app for.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even if they benefit from me using YT Music, they make no sales pitch at any point leading up to me seeing the button is gone and leaving the platform. They are just missing out on tons of ad revenue from users that otherwise would have stayed and listened for hours.

        And Pandora also assuredly did not design their app to crash.

        • dwindling7373@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Clearly. That’s still in no way the primary intended use of YouTube because, you know, video?

          You over redundant lossless head!

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Lets read my statement back, abridged

            its primary use … to me.

            Is this like a sentence structure that doesnt exist in other languages or were a nonnegligible number of lemmings homeschooled?

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I mean, it’s obvious what you meant, but that’s still awful grammar on your part.

              When read properly, your wording means that you are stating that YouTubes’ primary use is music, which is useless to you.

              Getting to your actual meaning requires interpreting around the literal meaning of what you wrote.

            • dwindling7373@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

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

              This, my humorous fellow netizen, means:

              Something AND something make the primary use (of said thing, YouTube), music (the specification of what is the primary use), pointless to me (such that I did not find said primary use any longer possible).

              We know what you mean because we are charitable enought not to assume you think the primary use of youtube is music, but you fucked the wording up and I made fun of you for that.

              What you wanted to say should have been phrased as it follows:

              The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes my primary use, listening to music, impossible.

              Now if public school in your country were better funded, you’d understand that my poking fun of you also had a different implication: it’s not that unreasonable for YouTube to have people suck huge bandwith to stream videos just for the minimal amount of sound data attached.

        • apemint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Fun little piece of trivia: Originally, nimrod used to mean “skillful hunter” (after Nimrod, the biblical figure) but then in 1940 Bugs Bunny sarcastically called Elmer Fudd a “poor little nimrod", and kids of the time not knowing the reference, simply assumed it was an insult on Elmer’s character.

          And that’s how a cartoon rabbit single handedly changed the meaning of a word.

  • ByteWelder@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they put the ads in the stream, you can just fast-forward. I don’t think it’ll work out well for Google.

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, turns out each ad is 15 seconds long per an agreement to standardize playback.

      Oh, turns out you can’t skip the first 30 seconds of a video.

      Oh, turns out if the first 15 seconds doesn’t play, the playback disables entirely.

      ~Solutions a lowly forklift repair technician came up with in five seconds.

      Imagine what a Google developer might think of.

  • neonred@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I really hate that picture. Imagine swapping the man and tho woman. He and their two kids waiting, knifes ready, for the spouse to come back from work, ready for stabbing an unsuspect. Wow, what an outcry this would have.

      • SKBo@lu.skbo.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        It blocked YouTube ads when ads where served from other domains or subdomains. Now that they’re served from the same subdomains as videos, it’s not blocking anymore.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Google bought YouTube before there were ads. The ads were always Google’s own ads from their own domains so Pihole could never block them.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          all these people missing the part where I said “holding a shotgun” – I guarantee you’ll never see a YouTube ad again if no data from their servers ever gets past your router. It’s not a subtle or precise option, but it is highly effective. Much like a shotgun.

          Then you can just use peertube or invidious.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              never underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of spiteful pirates. It’s been a while since I last used invidious, but I can’t imagine it being permanently broken. in the meantime – Piped, then?

              If things get real stupid, we might have to employ AI to identify and strip ads from videos before mirroring. edit: Someone has, in fact, already trained an AI to identify ads in a video, with apparently 97.4% accuracy. So, the hard part’s already been done.

              • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                There has been some back and forth between Goolag’s countermeasures and Invidious’ countermeasures before arriving at the current situation, Invidious seemingly having lost the battle.

                From their git issue tracker:

                Hello,

                Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

                Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore. (Some datacenter IPs may still work, but that’s a matter of time until they don’t anymore.) … This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

                • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You can still self-host Invidious. I’m doing this for 1-2 weeks without any problems. What does not work: Public instances hosted in data centers, because YouTube blocked lots of cloud IPs.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              explain the part where I misled anyone? Do you still get YouTube ads even after blocking YouTube’s servers? I’d be interested to see that, if so. Otherwise, I forgive your stupidity.

  • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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…

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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…

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      They can block some kinds of server-side ads. And if google has those already, they have been quite successful against youtube.

      But yeah, they won’t block all server-side ads.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Wolfram@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even then, the only fool proof way of getting around server side ads is using an adblocking proxy that pipes the video stream into a different country. And public proxies available are not foolproof because of excessive traffic or whatnot.

        • Wolfram@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          And specifically this is for TTV.LOL revolving around Twitch.

          I think the same applies to YouTube in the same countries Twitch can’t play ads in. But I haven’t seen anything about YouTube adblocking proxies like TTV.LOL.

      • Ignotum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Your browser just receives a single video file, there’s no way to tell where in that video there’s an ad, if there even is one

        You can’t remove nor replace it if you don’t know what to remove or replace

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months 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?

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • anonymous111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I was thinking about this. Can we crowd source add hash markers, in a similar way to how Sponsor Block opperates but with hashes instead of time stamps?

        • hash@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even if they do this, I wouldn’t be averse to a less on demand version of youtube. 3rd party apps will let you load a number of videos for later viewing. Would probably help me consume media more responsibly and youtube has to deal with the additional resources needed to serve all the videos I didn’t wind up watching after all.

    • j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • Squiddlioni@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

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