this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
786 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59414 readers
4014 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.::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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Meshkov said that assessment [that scriptlet injection is the only reliable method of ad blocking for youtbue] is accurate if you limit yourself to browser extensions (which is how most popular ad blockers are distributed). But he pointed to network-level ad blockers and alternative YouTube clients, such as NewPipe, as other approaches that can work.

How exactly do these youtube front ends survive Google anyways? Why can't Google simply block all the traffic coming from these front ends in order to kill them off entirely? Kind of interesting that some ad blockers are having a hard time being effective on YT while these front ends seem to be having no issues accessing videos on the site.

[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

Client side versus server.

To use a metaphor: the internet is a mailperson, and a YouTube video is a package. The mailperson hands it off to me. Then I have to fumble with opening the box to get the item inside.

Well, let's say I have a butler. The butler can take the package from the mailman, and rip out all the unnecessary stuff, and give me what's inside the box. The butler is adblock.

YouTube/Google cannot mess with my butler. Why? Because it's outside of their power. They can try to do things like force a signature before giving me the package. But guess what? My butler can sign off my package. YouTube knows to get to me, they have to go through my butler - period.

So there's no "blocking traffic" because once the package is sent, they have to deal with my butler. And they can make all sorts of detectors on the package, but we'll keep finding ways to bypass it and convince the package that my butler can totally sign for me.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 11 months ago

There is no way to determine if the request comes from an alternative frontend or a legitimate user. Even if they start blocking all public instances of alternatives, which is highly unfeasible since most of them use VPN and blocking all VPNs is extremely restrictive for legitimate users too, you can host them locally.

[–] r3df0x@7.62x54r.ru 12 points 11 months ago

If someone hosts their own front end, Google has no way of knowing whether or not it's legitimate.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Really enjoying LibreTube on my phone, for listening to long videos without the video on screen. Its audio mode is very clean in my opinion.

[–] Cosmocrat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Google could implement Widevine DRM for all videos.

[–] r3df0x@7.62x54r.ru 6 points 11 months ago

In order for someone to experience the video, it has to go from digital to analog. That will always be the weakpoint of DRM. Someone can always put a middleman application in that point. Expect corporations to push for chip implants that allow them to directly control what you experience.