Google Cracks Down on Adblock

[Sarge034]

Snip

Yeah, I think there's a lot of good discussion to be had about adblock but it's just so dangerous a topic. Like why people use it, how both sides can make concessions to find a happy medium, and what changes to ads would make folks stop using adblock. Oh well, now I guess we're just...

Spoiler

 

[gact]

what if addblock takes the add and reproduces it somewhere we cant see it?, doesnt everyone win in this scenario?

Those are called Pop-unders and they still use up system resources. Considering a number of these ads utilize audio, video, and various other methods they can bog the system down pretty quick. To add those have a particularly nasty habit of having viruses, malware, and all other forms of nasty crap attached to them because people don't spot them before they can be loaded up and do some real damage.

about resources, loading an ad doesnt take much from your pc unless you are using a literal potato, bandwidth I can agree because there are some dumb countries that have a monthly cap on data usage but if you dont have that then half a second more of loading is something no one notices, and the only way to get viruses from ads is if you click one of them. When ads use sound the blocker can mute them and let them play anyways and the revenue algorithm wont notice the lack of sound, it just checks if the ad loaded.

 

[truckspond]

Looks like I chose a damn good time to abandon Chrome and go to Opera as my daily driver (Same engine, no Google bloat/spyware)

 

[Leon Royce]

Most people never buy anything they see advertised.

Setting aside the fact that your "never" is obviously hyperbole - even you bought something you saw advertised - here's the point from an advertisers perspective: Nobody buys a product they're not aware of. Sure, the vast, vast majority of the people you advertise to won't buy your product, but that's okay, so long as the people who would like to buy your product do find out about it. Maybe by seeing ads, maybe word of mouth, maybe by reviews or articles - oh, and an ad buy might just go a long way towards having such articles or reviews of your product exist.

I guess the major difference between an add and a review is that when I consult a review I'm seeking something, whereas an add intrudes on your space with something which, almost all the time, you do not want or need at that time.

The difference then would be between seeking something and having something thrown in your face.

I think the best way for companies to get their products out is to:

- Make something of actual quality, make it the best or as close to the best as one can achieve
- Get it advertised and reviewed by sources that people trust

Nvidia had to get the word out about the GTX970 I bought a few months ago, but I've never seen it advertised on billboards or in pop-up adds. They made something which had great qualities and word of mouth spread, and finally I looked into it on different sites to see what all the fuss was about.

 

[kasperbbs]

The only reason i still use chrome is because it can sync my bookmarks with my phone and tablet and because i have a shitload of ram. If they start making their browser even more annoying i will seriously consider changing it.
Ad blockers will stick around as long as these obnoxious ads exist. I was just googling something and when i entered the site it opened a new tab, a popup window popped out and a bunch of animated shit started loading on the sides. I get that websites need to make a profit to stay afloat, but don't make your site as annoying as possible. I even encountered an ad that i couldn't get rid of without restarting my pc, the fuck?

 

[DoPo]

about resources, loading an ad doesnt take much from your pc unless you are using a literal potato

Umm, seems you haven't seen how Flash blows up Firefox. Seriously, plugin-container just suddenly starts gobbling up all the memory, locking up the entire browser in the process and after some times, when when memory management finally scales out of control, it just dies. Firefox may or may not crash in the process, but you'll definitely lose anything hooked to the Flash plugin.

Oh, and then there are the non-Flash ads. Just because they don't use Flash, doesn't mean they aren't stressing the browser - JS is quite enough by itself doing that. A lot of times the ad code is written by people who have learned (if you can call it that) to code from resources like this [http://www.pageresource.com/jscript/jarray2.htm]. No wonder their code fucking sucks. But JS can easily bring down a browser, as well. The entire browser, at least in the case of Firefox - I believe in Chrome it would just destroy the one tab this is running in (separate threads and all) but I don't use Chrome enough to have seen this happen.

and the only way to get viruses from ads is if you click one of them.

Erm, no. Is JS mostly safe (assuming code that doesn't stress your browser)? Well, yes. Is JS completely safe? Well, definitely, definitely no. XSS and exploiting browser vulnerabilities are always a possibility. And hey, they don't require you to click. Or you could click, as well - doesn't need to be on the ad - remember these could run any code in your browser - let's say you type in your password and click "login"...however, malicious code that was injected to the page via an add hijacks your request and forwards it to Eve. There you go. Or what if clicking on any link on that page actually sends you to mrhaxxor.info/totallysafe/trustme/notavirus.php?spoofFileName=file_you_clicked_on

About Flash...the Flash security is a joke - has been for a very long time. I'm pretty sure every single update they've had lately (for the past few years) were about addressing security issues. Firefox disabled the Flash plugin recently because Adobe haven't been fixing it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141569-Firefox-And-Facebook-Want-To-Kill-Adobe-Flash-Browser-Plugin].

 

[BarkBarker]

You can complain about adblock when you don't put such intrusive ad placement and ANNIHILATE a video with a certain length with fucking 6 ads.

 

[Lightknight]

You can complain about adblock when you don't put such intrusive ad placement and ANNIHILATE a video with a certain length with fucking 6 ads.

6 ads? Did you not grow up with TV? They do 6 ads in one commercial break. Youtube barely advertises comparatively and most of the time the ads are skippable after five seconds. I could expect my kids to get pissed off about 6 ads or my grandkids but no one who grew up with standard television.

Then again, if you're 13 years old then that means you've never even known a time without regular internet.

"Don't be evil"

How about being annoying and just plain obtrusive

I wonder how long it will be before Google buys Mozilla

Annoying, yes, obtrusive? No, it isn't intrusive in any way that would make it obtrusive. It is a hindrance to your goals, sure.

I think it's important to point out how they would view you. You (royal you, not necessarily you personally though the context makes it seem likely) are a person who is enjoying someone else's work for free because of ads which allow them to profit from their work without charging you anything and instead of giving them their due reward for the time and effort they invested in your entertainment you are instead taking what they're offering and sidestepping the only thing they're requesting in return.

To them, you are a leech. Only taking and not giving back in what should be a symbiotic relationship. I don't adblock because it's sleazy. Five seconds of my time? Fine.

 

[boag]

So less people will use google chrome and more people will use firefox.
Good job, google.

Firefox is now literally Chromefox so....

btw ive had escapist white listed since last year. keep up the good work lads.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Wouldn't care about viewing ads if those ads weren't obnoxiously long and pointless (talking 30s to 1 minute long ads on youtube sometimes) and would instead draw inspiration from radio ads or be interactive and actually interesting.

Another problem is ads that are actively trying to scam me. For example, I've been the "lucky visitor" every day in a row for two weeks on The Escapist, telling me I've won some Apple product but wanting me to install all sorts of crap on my computer first.

Obviously only a total internet noob would fall for that stuff, but the mere presence of such malicious shit is seriously worrying and annoying.

 

[FalloutJack]

To them, you are a leech.

Putting aside that it certainly wasn't always this way, that sort of low opinion of people is why their actions are wrong. As I said, if you have to shit on people to make a point, you've lost because you took a big smelly dump in the middle of things.

 

[Lightknight]

To them, you are a leech.

Putting aside that it certainly wasn't always this way, that sort of low opinion of people is why their actions are wrong. As I said, if you have to shit on people to make a point, you've lost because you took a big smelly dump in the middle of things.

Well, first off I'd disagree that Google is taking a "shit" on anyone. They are just removing the ability to take something for free that is being offered at the cost of watching the ads.

Viewing mooches as mooches isn't a low opinion of people, it's a low opinion of mooches.

So I object to the notion that Google is viewing "people" as lowly and I also object to the notion that they're taking a shit on people.

Instead, they are only harming mooches and that's what business have been doing for as long as possible. While the actual value of ad watching may be small, this is the equivalent of allowing people to take a single piece of candy out of a candy shop for free. A few people doing so doesn't matter as long as enough people buy the bulk of candy. But people in mass? That's an unwieldy loss.

 

[FalloutJack]

Zoop

When has that ever been true when somebody decides to make an unnecessary security measure around a thing, citing needs for control and this and that? Another point I made is that it'll probably just get worked around like they do with anti-piracy software. So, ineffective measure will probably become ineffective, harm the consumer for no reason, and bob's your uncle we're back where we started again. There's nothing moochy here. This isn't a machine to steal Netflix or something. It's not piracy. Youtube has always been a free service. They can put ads up if they want, but people are not required to have them forced down their throat either. If my cable provider decided that they don't want people ignoring commercials and decided to do similar, I would fucking sue for disturbing my peace. There's nothing wrong with your willingness to give them their time, but that is a choice that you make. Are you saying people do not have the right to choose?

 

[waj9876]

If the creators of adblocker made it easier to choose certain websites to exempt the adblocking part people would probably turn it off of youtube and websites they particularly like.

 

[DoPo]

If the creators of adblocker made it easier to choose certain websites to exempt the adblocking part people would probably turn it off of youtube and websites they particularly like.

Spoiler: Firefox

Literally two clicks.

Spoiler: Chrome

Literally two clicks

 

[Loonyyy]

The choice whether to block ads or not to block ads has always boggled me. I never buy something from a commercial. NEVER. Not one ad I've ever seen has tempted me to buy something. So why should I have to tolerate them? They're not getting money out of me, so you're wasting both our time trying to get me to..

Oddly enough that presents a good reason to use it too. If you really aren't affected at all by advertising, then there's absolutely no harm to it, and it provides revenue that keeps the site up, so it's like a sneaky scam you and the site have running on the advertiser. Potentially preroll video ads waste a little time, but as that pays for the content, it should be tolerable.

OT: Doesn't seem like a great idea. People want to block ads, and some sites are borderline unuseable without it. They absolutely ruin so many UIs. Additionally, a lot of ads are a real security risk. Websites, hosts, and advertisers really need to step up their game. Autoplay video ads on regular pages are annoying as hell, to the point that knowing which tab is playing audio is an appreciable feature in a browser. Broken pop ups, and scam ads are just a nuisance. Import bride ads are just low rent garbage.

Trying to recorner the market for ads is just going to drive more users to block ads. I get that they let us have the internet, and content for free, and I like that. I don't like having to virtually bleach out my computer because an ad has a malicious script, I don't like porny bullshit in the sidebars, I don't like obvious scams or malicious links there, I don't like hearing ads for stupid fucking SUVs playing in one of the dozen tabs I have open. It's seriously weak.

 

[BrokenTinker]

what if addblock takes the add and reproduces it somewhere we cant see it?, doesnt everyone win in this scenario?

Those are called Pop-unders and they still use up system resources. Considering a number of these ads utilize audio, video, and various other methods they can bog the system down pretty quick. To add those have a particularly nasty habit of having viruses, malware, and all other forms of nasty crap attached to them because people don't spot them before they can be loaded up and do some real damage.

about resources, loading an ad doesnt take much from your pc unless you are using a literal potato, bandwidth I can agree because there are some dumb countries that have a monthly cap on data usage but if you dont have that then half a second more of loading is something no one notices, and the only way to get viruses from ads is if you click one of them. When ads use sound the blocker can mute them and let them play anyways and the revenue algorithm wont notice the lack of sound, it just checks if the ad loaded.

Sorry, but no, heeellllll no. I might not be a code-monkey, but I did enough cleaning up the mess and shit and actually research them to the point that I can say with certainty that the ad alone is enough to infect your computer. Ignore the "adobe update", the "java update" and the other stuff, there are vulnerabilities in flash, JS and a few others to hijack your computer. There were even cases of "silent" downloads by using known vulnerability to hijack a browser and permissions.

Knowingly download them is CERTAINLY an issue, but there are times when I couldn't really get mad at a $user cause it's just that bloody sneaky. The scary thing is that these ads pop up even on the large ad networks every now and then, I've resorted to IP ban by regions (russia, china, various eastern europe countries) when I've seen outbreaks of these things prior to using adblocks.

 

[Frankster]

*uninstalls chrome*

Gj google! I already felt stupid for not using firefox as my only browser instead of one of many and now you've made the decision to uninstall yours an easy one!

Youtube ads are amongst the worst imo right alongside sites that have so much ads they bring your browsing to a crawl due to all the junk that has to be loaded. Sadly I'm not even talking about p0rn sites either :/

 

[Strazdas]

in-video ads are not and never will be acceptable way to advertise. make unintrusive ads and ill gladly watch them. 3 minutes unskippable ad before a video - nope. The escapist got a lot better with their ads now, much less intrusive. That Lockerdome thing at the right side is a bit annoying though since you are literally advertising malware.

Just to be clear, this is only for the YouTube App, right?

Yes, it only affects Youtube app users.

I use Firefox because Chrome is a Ram guzzler, and stuff like this doesn't make me thing twice about my decision.

I use Firefox because its the only browser that does not think privacy is dead. Its also the only browser that had the guts to fight DRM (and lost).

Meh bye chrome. Youtube has also become kind of a cesspool. I wouldn't mind seeing it go too. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't push youtube "content creators" so hard. When Im browsing youtube for things I actually want the amount of "people react to" videos that are spammed are enough to make me just say "fuck it" and go find what I want somewhere else.

press the "not interested" option at the bottom right corner of the video. seriously. i did this for like 10 of those and now they never show up for me. same for minecraft videos (i really an mot interested in some twerp screaming about this minecraft mod he installed for 10 minutes)

If all you want to do is block Flash stuff there are usually plug-ins that will just block Flash as opposed to all ads. Or you can just use Firefox, which has recently disabled the Flash plug-in by default because it's a security hazard and doesn't force you to watch 3-minuute Youtube ads apparently.

Firefox has disabled only one, outdated flash version because it was a security risk. Adobe in their utter despair took a whooping 2 weeks to release a new version that wasnt a security hazzard. once you update Flash to that new version the flash is no longer disabled.

If Google doesn't make any money off the ad-block crowd, then LET THEM jump ship

There's no reason to keep them. People forget that. If you ad-block, you usually give up your right to be heard. Some will do so anyway (like Fakku), but it's not a bad idea to ignore them.

People can benefit a website in many other ways outside of looking at ads.

Ugh... The article that talks about youtube's profits mentions them trying to get more 'autoplaying' videos.
Those are the worst thing anyone has ever come up with.
Especially when they get used for ads.

I noted that youtube has actually removed the option to turn off 'autoplay' on playlists.
Gone completely.
That's just absurd.
And gets so annoying...

The option is still there. its a small button on the right side of the screen outside of the video player. I use YoutubeHD addon for firefox that controls those automatically for me. it also forces youtube into always loading 1080p video because for some reason youtube likes to lower the resolution sometimes as well as allows me to streach the vidoe window throughout the entire screen automatically. the new player broke some of it though so i dont suggest it just yet. but its going to be great when the guy fix it.

Unfortunately, we've constructed a society that insists on people being able to be 'self-sufficient' in terms of finding a way to get paid directly for what they do in life.

That seems to be a combination of influences that will either force society to change, or collapse the very concept of a 'creative' industry completely.
Or at least, one that depends on the internet for it's survival.

So... Yay. Is the future going to be a good place? Or a horrible mess?
Who knows.

Considering the striking success of Patreon it is most certainly a possibility. For example Jim Sterling has stated not long ago that it has been the best decision he took and is very happy with his Patreon funded business. There are no advertisement on his site.

Well luckily I use Firefox for video watching since chrome can't do surround sound.

I didnt even knew youtube allows more than stereo in audio.....

To date, I don't know of any major video producers that have actually established their own video hosting setup either.

Angry Video Game Nerd hosts his own videos and site in his basement. He is big enough to fill rooms fully in conferences for years. Arguably in general public hes bigger than Yahtzee or Jim.

As a person who grew up with a TV i dont really see any problem with waiting 5 seconds to watch a video.
Do you guys remember how the TV was 1/3 adds? A 20min Simpsons episode lasted 30min with adds, SpongeBob was like 11mins and lasted 15 with adds.... Do you want to watch a 2 hours movie on TV? Better prepare to spend 3 hours because theres going to be 1 hour of adds....

Its the reason i stopped watching TV completely. Video on demand has no ads.

what if addblock takes the add and reproduces it somewhere we cant see it?, doesnt everyone win in this scenario?

uBlock does something similar. It sends the website data stating that you have watched the video, even though you did not. So the site gets metrics stating that the ad was seen, thus tricking the anti-adblock scripts.

There is an awful lot of salt in this thread for something that Google is completely within their rights to do.

I use adblock, sure, but I don't understand getting pissy with websites that try to circumvent it in whatever way they can. "Oh, that terrible Google, trying to stop something that loses them money! How dare they!"

I have no sympathy for websites that think advertisement that covers the content is acceptable.

 

[Lightknight]

*uninstalls chrome*

Gj google! I already felt stupid for not using firefox as my only browser instead of one of many and now you've made the decision to uninstall yours an easy one!

Youtube ads are amongst the worst imo right alongside sites that have so much ads they bring your browsing to a crawl due to all the junk that has to be loaded. Sadly I'm not even talking about p0rn sites either :/

This is the response that I think Google is risking here. I understand why Google would prevent people from walking into their own store front and taking, but since other store fronts have access to the same products and don't restrict customers then the risk of alienating them from your storefront isn't a risk so much as an inevitability.

However, youtube could eventually claim that IE and Firefox are ipso-facto giving their browser users access to pirated videos when they're be obtained for free as long as Google successfully shows that the requirement of watching ads is the cost being incurred rather than monetary compensation from the viewer. If they ever succeed at this then it will be illegal for browsers to do this.

But even then, browsers are not incredibly difficult to make. People will start making their own if this becomes a thing. Tools will be built to simplify the process and people will make what they call an "unfinished prototype" that just doesn't include these sorts of things yet and leave it on the user to use the template to build up from there.

Zoop

When has that ever been true when somebody decides to make an unnecessary security measure around a thing, citing needs for control and this and that? Another point I made is that it'll probably just get worked around like they do with anti-piracy software. So, ineffective measure will probably become ineffective, harm the consumer for no reason, and bob's your uncle we're back where we started again. There's nothing moochy here. This isn't a machine to steal Netflix or something. It's not piracy. Youtube has always been a free service. They can put ads up if they want, but people are not required to have them forced down their throat either. If my cable provider decided that they don't want people ignoring commercials and decided to do similar, I would fucking sue for disturbing my peace. There's nothing wrong with your willingness to give them their time, but that is a choice that you make. Are you saying people do not have the right to choose?

The consumer doesn't have adblock. Anyone using adblock is no consumer of youtube. So I fail to recognize your claim's validity that this harms anyone but "pirates".