Did YOUTUBE really break EU LAWS with AD-BLOCKER DETECTION?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лис 2023
- 💸💸 Help me contribute to KDE and do these videos: 💸💸
Paypal: paypal.me/niccolove
Patreon: / niccolove
Liberapay: liberapay.com/niccolove
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/niccolove
Stay in the loop: t.me/veggeroblog
My website is nicco.love and if you want to contact me, my telegram handle is [at] veggero.
I am aware of the graphic glitches and I'm working on them!!
I thought it would be an effect that you wanted😅
how can you be working on graphics glitches on already uploaded video?
start introducing them intentionally cus they're visually interesting
@@RandomGeometryDashStuff no, I'm working on making sure it doesn't happen again
@@niccoloveslinux average ffmpeg user xd. great video btw
4:00 On the one hand, yes, the interpretation is the judiciary's job.
On the other hand, intent is also a crucial part of laws, so these types of clarifications very much have an effect on how the laws are interpreted in practice.
I want to be real here, if we would need to make laws without that, not only would they be multiple hundred times larger in size (without any extra information), it would make legislative work or creating new laws impossible in practice. Laws already need many people working on them (even if it sometimes doesn't seem like it, they just work in the background) because some people try to get through every single possible loophole.
Obviously, this means that you need competent officials, but as Otto von Bismarck once said: "With bad laws and good officials one can still run a country. With bad officials even the best laws don't help."
You need to boost your volume Nico
Also about "recent files" keep history option "do not keep history" or custom timing settings doesn't exist.
As always best content. Very informative. I am very glad you take the extra effort to do your videos in English. I have learned so much from watching your channel.
How is it informative when he doesn't even get the details about the slowdown right?
As for the slow down of 5 seconds is on all browsers that have as block not just firefox. Lois Rossman has a video on this where he treats it and desputes the Firefox rumor
I literally say this in the video
TL DR :
A multibillion $ company has lawyers and know what they are doing 😄.
Is that why they have been constantly been involved in lawsuits over the past years lol
I think you need to have the video link in the description in order to add it to the video as suggestion. At least right now nothing is shown when you talk about Brodie’s video.
Here we go: UA-cam will add a Do You Agree popup with Allow or Go Back and problem is solved for them.
It looks like that just happened.I had a UA-cam cookies popup just a few hours ago
Too little too late for Google because we know what this is really about.
It's about the Google CEOs wanting more money in their wallets plain and simple.
As it just so happens, I've been letting the ads play for most videos I watch these days, but not every video gets ads for some reason and the ads vary in length. I don't know if the length of an ad factors into how much money a content creator gets, but for some I just let it play all the way even when it's a 2 minute ad. For this video I only got ads at the end that totaled about 1 minute.
10:39 it can be link to a personal information. So it is personal information.
as always interesting content
So UA-cam will ask for cookies and adblocker detection
Keep wearing the pride pins, it's so funny watching conservatives shit their pants.
love the flag pin !
Loving the new format and the content is top notch as always. Keep up the great work.
The premise that UA-cam needs explicit user consent to send program code to the user is silly: what is a UA-cam video player if not program code? What is the UA-cam web page if not program code?
Key part is that that should only be allowed without consent if it's necessary to provide the service
@@niccoloveslinux does code that synchronizes loading video content with ads necessary to provide the service? UA-cam will argue that it is a core part of the UA-cam service.
The concept some people have that non-ad content is core UA-cam service, but the ads they use to monetize is not - is, apologies, dumb.
I'm pretty sure I read or heard the EU were pushing for client side scanning of messaging apps. "Surveillance Report" or "Naomi Brockwell" maybe, something like that.
I've done a video about this!!!
😂@@niccoloveslinux See, I knew I had heard it somewhere! 👍
This problem is not as black and white because the whole "ad supported" content is not really well grounded or battle tested in courts.
For starters, if you enter a website are you automatically bound by any type of contract? Probably unlikely, because for any contract to be binding you need to know the terms first.
Second thing, is the contract clear on how much resources (compute power, local storage, internet bandwidth, type of ads that will be displayed) is going to be consumed by the ads while I continue to use the service? If not then it is impossible to asses if the contract is fair or not - and this is in many countries grounds for a contract to be straight up invalid.
Next thing, minors, usually can't be bound by contracts.
Next thing, can the user make a complaint if they watch the ads (pay for service) but experience some issues, video did not load, audio was missing etc. and expect compensation, how would such compensation look like?
Next thing, if the ad happens to be a scam or contains a virus, the party who insisted on displaying them to you as a form of "payment" is now probably on the hook for damages.
The reality is that "ad supported" content is a gray area and no one was stupid enough to touch the status quo exactly because there are whole lot of legal issues that now someone will have to figure out. The only group of people who are going to be happy about it are lawyers.
You bring up a good point about minors being unable to sign a contract because these social media/recommendation media platforms (UA-cam is categorized as "recommendation media") heavily target the teenage demographic and these teenagers cannot give consent to such contracts until they become adults.
I don't know exactly if it works the same way in Europe but that's how it works here in the United States.
Advert is a content with a malicious intent.
No, it did not, and I'm not happy about it ...
I love the badge!
ehh no...
What I am against (and maybe EU) is: That they brick our equipment by injecting scripts into them to behave differently according to what other stuff we have on our equipment... Showing or not showing ads should not affect the efficiency of the browser.
Like If I had purchased a hardware content filtering device (like a Pi hole), that eliminates certain content and then they brick other tools down my line - like my browser that they might slow down, by injecting code they like me to run on my system, on my CPU that I am paying the energy for... That is bad... and the investment I put on hardware is down the drain...
Rest assure if UA-cam is allowed to do this, then everyone is allowed too, no more ad-blockers allowed anywhere.
If they do not wish me to watch YT videos with or without ads then they have 2 options:
1. Make the whole thing behind a paywall (the best IMO, no more clashes with users)
2. Detect and block ad-blockers from their own system, without involving some others equipment.
With that said, there is normally an understanding between the site visitor and the site creator that JavaScript may be allowed if it enhances the visit, however if a site misuse JavaScript, like those who implements mining scripts, that is not good. for that reason ad-blockers or content filters is a very good thing. ohhh ads do not enhance your visit, some banner ads may be accepted but not in such a way that it disrupt the site...
But if UA-cam are allowed to do it, then rest assure others will to and that might in the long round make the web useless... Yea except for those that think that the web was created for the companies.
I who was there 1000 years ago remember it was created by users for users (not the backbone though, for that we paid) - We ruled it, but as the time went along and more and more people was drawn in, the parasites started to enter as well (the companies that is) who more or less destroyed the whole experience, first slowly then it exploded and lastly they where the ones who decided the rules of what and whatnot we can do on a service we pay for - to access that is.
Just imagine how Internet would have looked like today if popup-blockers had been disallowed in the days... My God!
OK but we download everything to see the page, html CSS js images, it is assumed the user has to d/l the page to see it. You can't ask consent for every file?
The argument is that those files are necessary for offering the service whereas the js script for AdBlock detection isn't
@@niccoloveslinuxwhat if adblock detector is not separate script?
even on max volume on my phone. i still cant hear you :(
My favourite part about your videos isn't just that they're informative, but that you wear pride pins with no comment for dumb bigots to rage at.
Next up from the EU: Hey, are we allowed to get your screen dimensions so we can use CSS on your site? Could be fingerprinting after all
UA-cam is basically public video library. Nobody has a right to force you to watch content with malicious intent or pay an extorted price to not watch content with malicious intent. Adverts are a type of malicious content.
Public libraries are financed by the public through tax.
The general public sure as hell is not being taxed to pay for UA-cam.
How CIA gets financed?@@Durnrhaegar
As I said on your last video, having pride flags in them will alienate a lot of people who would otherwise agree with privacy and open source. Because of those, sharing these videos with conservative friends is likely to go nowhere
Trans badge...?
That pin goes hard!
I appreciate him doubling down just based on his prior video and some comments there. XD