Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54609 readers

449 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

377

SponsorBlock (and DeArrow): "YouTube is currently experimenting with server-si…" - Fosstodon (fosstodon.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

YouTube is currently experimenting with server-side ad injection. This means that the ad is being added directly into the video stream.

This breaks sponsorblock since now all timestamps are offset by the ad times.

For now, I set up the server to detect when someone is submitting from a browser with this happening and rejecting the submission to prevent the database from getting filled with incorrect submissions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 42 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It'll be difficult for a while until someone figures it out and then it'll be easy again. It's just an arms race.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The last time Google pulled out all the stops to fight ad blockers, I had to update uBlock Origin every now and then until the whole thing passed. That's all.

So I'm not worried. But I am amused that they keep making ads more obnoxious, which pushes more people to use ad blockers. I didn't even use sponsorblock until a particularly egregious bit of native advertising. They could probably gain ground by just making ads less irritating, but they absolutely will not.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Capitalism is in the end, fighting for monopoly. They rather lose money in foreseeable future, and probably ever, than allow adblockers do their thing for small user-base. Because they want max. control. I can only assume companies that do not go to arms race with their consumers are thee ones that aren't public traded companies.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It might even be simpler than that. Capitalism just doesn't care past the next quarter. And when ownership is disconnected from labor or even from customer, than it's just a really rudimentary collective intelligence. The shareholders just want the line to go up, and everyone in the corporate structure is accountable to the shareholders, so they all do their part, big or little, to make that happen. It completely dispenses with personal responsibility, whether for negative externalities, direct harm, or even the future as close as months from now.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This one might be harder, if YT just sends the ad like it was part of the video file, generating it on the fly, it's a lot harder to detect, and probably not too hard for them to do, but breaking timestamps is pretty bad for some types of videos, like tutorials.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

I think the larger content creators will push back against this, precisely due to the timestamp issue.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

it would require government intervention. Where a regulation must declare that ads must clearly be labelled as ads, so that adjustments can be made by detecting when is the ad segment happening.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

If I recall correctly ads in the United states need to be labelled ads and is the reason #ad exists on Instagram