[Youtube Pop-Up] "Ad blockers are not allowed on Youtube"

[Frick]

do I have to look at a billboard I drive past, while I'm driving?

You should stop and contemplaye the messege for a few minutes, if you don't you'll be fined. That's how it should be anyway. That is the dream.

 

[jon_joy_1999]

do I have to look at a billboard I drive past, while I'm driving?

That's not even the same idea as adblock. Adblock is effectively tearing down the billboard before you even see it.

Adblock is like going to a potluck and not bringing a dish.

It's okay to be a pirate. You can run adblock, just don't try to defend it like you're being righteous against the big bad youtube industrial complex, showin' them the finger yeaaaa lets gooo getrektyoutube.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Explain how piracy works.

Not the way YOU think.

@jon_joy_1999 It is possible you are correct

They're not, don't worry about it.

That's not even the same idea as adblock. Adblock is effectively tearing down the billboard before you even see it.

That's a silly notion. And no, that's not the way it works.

That's how it should be anyway. That is the dream.

That's not a dream, that a damn nightmare. And no, that's NOT how it should be.

 

[Shihab]

That's not even the same idea as adblock. Adblock is effectively tearing down the billboard before you even see it.

Adblocking, in this case, would be more along the lines of filtering out the specific photons reflecting from the said billboard before they hit your retinas.

It's okay to be a pirate. You can run adblock, just don't try to defend it like you're being righteous against the big bad youtube industrial complex, showin' them the finger yeaaaa lets gooo getrektyoutube.

Blocking ads does pose a moral and economic dilemma, but it's not cut-and-dried piracy. Piracy is a criminal act, ad-blocking isn't. This matter has already been tried and settled in court.
Now, if a website did explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers or knowingly prevent them from being displayed, then sure, that's a clear violation that may be actionable. Personally, I've yet to pass any site that does so.

I don't even had an Ad blocker installed but turning the privacy settings in Edge to strict & very high made one of those things show up on the ww.weather.com. I'm pretty sure that also violates the law as it's your property. They have no right to even know if you are using one or not.

Adblock detection isn't illegal either.
It's indeed your property, but you did invite the service provider in for a specific reason, one that includes several implicit consents. Not much different from the consent you give a guest you invite to your house to listen to the noises and see the lights that reach whichever room you let them into. Adblock detection doesn't snoop to see whether you have some software installed, they simply check whether some element is rendered/loaded or not.

 

[P4-630]

Try uBlock origin with

Malwarebytes Browser Guard 2025 - Blocks ads, scams, and trackers

Malwarebytes Browser Guard 2025 helps speed up your web browsing experience by blocking ads, scams, and trackers. Download free for Chrome and Firefox.

www.malwarebytes.com

 

[lemonadesoda]

do I have to look at a billboard I drive past, while I'm driving?

Oh yes! Let me talk to the local town council about this GREAT idea. They can install traffic lights under the billboard. If the advertiser pays more, then the light goes red for 20 seconds every minute. Brilliant! You’re a genius.

 

[Lost_Troll]

Try uBlock origin with

Malwarebytes Browser Guard 2025 - Blocks ads, scams, and trackers

Malwarebytes Browser Guard 2025 helps speed up your web browsing experience by blocking ads, scams, and trackers. Download free for Chrome and Firefox.

www.malwarebytes.com

I run AdGuard with the Malwarebytes browser Guard as well, but I also have block 3rd party cookies set to on. I am thinking of running a Pihole or AdGuard server at some point, so I don't have to have them installed on my desktop PC's.

As for me, I do not see that running an ad blocker makes me pirate or unethical, I see it as making me safer from malware infections. Just about a quarter of all malware infections are caused by infected add's or videos.

 

[NSX05]

Now, if a website did explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers or knowingly prevent them from being displayed, then sure, that's a clear violation that may be actionable. Personally, I've yet to pass any site that does so.

Anyone in the industry who knows a thing or two about user experience knows that you should never plaster the page with ads, unless you like extremely high bounce rates. A visitor decides whether they want to continue browsing on a website within the first 3–5 seconds. The way some tech journalism websites behave in this manner is frankly insane. But they know that said websites are slowly being replaced by the likes of YouTube, simply because a video is easier to digest. Don't get me wrong, I do still like to read articles (and for older hardware reviews, you don't really have much choice), but a video is a simpler medium to interact with.

In response to the quoted section of your post, whenever websites are even close to considering such actions, they would rather implement a paywall of some kind. That is the better route for them to take. SemiAccurate and a plethora of newspaper websites are great examples of this behavior.

 

[freeagent]

I don't pay for youtube, but their ads are getting pretty annoying. Its worse than cable now.

 

[95Viper]

Stay on topic and stop discussing side topics.

 

[Jacky_BEL]

When i connect to YT , i don't want to connect to a hundred other different IP-addresses.
Maybe if they were more open and transparant about it, people would be more inclined to accept.

Now it is just e-stalking from their part. And I am not having it.
Static ads? Sure why not.
Spying and stalking? No way.

 

[jon_joy_1999]

Not the way YOU think.

Oh, the age old argument of "Im NoT RonG Ur RoNg!!!1one".
I'm here to teach other people things I know/believe, and to learn from other people, not necessarily in that order. If you're not interested in that, then just say so from the beginning and I'll behave accordingly.

Blocking ads does pose a moral and economic dilemma, but it's not cut-and-dried piracy. Piracy is a criminal act, ad-blocking isn't. This matter has already been tried and settled in court.

Your german court has minimal jurisdiction over Youtube, and I'm looking directly at the ruling right now, and cannot read it, so I'm inferring that it's not intended to be precedent for entities outside of Germany.

Now, if a website did explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers or knowingly prevent them from being displayed, then sure, that's a clear violation that may be actionable. Personally, I've yet to pass any site that does so.

Does this fall under your specific of "Explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers"? Because to me it looks like Youtube is explicitly saying either don't use adblock, or pay for Premium:

View attachment 295394

 

[MarsM4N]

Now, if a website did explicitly prohibit its users from using adblockers or knowingly prevent them from being displayed, then sure, that's a clear violation that may be actionable. Personally, I've yet to pass any site that does so.

I've came across countless websites (esp. news websites) doing just that, so I am sure it isn't actionable. It's their site and they are free to let in or not let in whoever they want. But doing so will also reduce web traffic/visits, impacting website rating & interest of add companies. So it's a double edged sword. It's only data protection the EU is very picky about.

Here's a site that's doing it for a long time, Bild.de, a major German tabloid newspaper. Was just confused why I didn't get the popup. Turns out I do not get it on uBlock but on AdGuard (desktop & mobile).

 

[P4-630]

I've came across countless websites (esp. news websites) doing just that

Tweaktown was one of them before.

 

[BSim500]

Adblock is piracy, and they do have rights. If you're not watching ads you're not paying for it. Therefore piracy.

That's not even remotely true. Piracy is unauthorized duplication / distribution of copyrighted material. Take a Youtube video and re-upload it / copy a DVD, etc, that's piracy. Not watching ads on an ad-funded service (without distributing any copies) is simply a breach of User Agreement / Terms of Service. The former is often a criminal offense. The latter is purely a civil terms of service matter. This is why you can go to jail for selling bootlegged disks on Ebay, but the police aren't going to arrest you for the Internet equivalent of hitting the FF button on your PVR remote when watching a recorded TV show nor for reading a newspaper / magazine and skipping over full paged ads instead of staring at each one for exactly 15.0s...

Adblock is effectively tearing down the billboard before you even see it.

No it isn't, as if you "tore down a billboard" then no-one else would be able to see the adverts. Clearly blocking ads for yourself (via an adblocker) has zero such effect on other people (who aren't blocking ads) to still see the ads. The only analogy of "tearing down the billboard" is if you hacked Google's Youtube servers so that it doesn't serve ads to anyone. AdBlockers alter your computer, not Google's, so you haven't "torn down" / hacked / destroyed anything.

Your german court has minimal jurisdiction over Youtube, and I'm looking directly at the ruling right now, and cannot read it, so I'm inferring that it's not intended to be precedent for entities outside of Germany.

Because to me it looks like Youtube is explicitly saying either don't use adblock, or pay for Premium:

Regardless of what Youtube / courts around the world say, or how many moral vs immoral arguments people throw up, ad-blocking is still a civil rather than criminal issue in almost every country, ie, it won't go anywhere near a court in the real world. The worst that will happen is they can restrict / close your Google account. Or ban suppliers of ad-blocking tools / browser extensions from their own Play Store, etc.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yes, it is. Youtube as a platform sells a service. The payment in this case is advertisements. If you're not watching ads you're not paying for it. Therefore piracy.

On the contrary Youtube used to have no ads

 

[jon_joy_1999]

On the contrary Youtube used to have no ads

So, what? Do you have an argument that entitles you to view youtube with an ad-blocker that doesn't consist of "it use to have no ads".

That's not even remotely true. Piracy is unauthorized duplication / distribution of copyrighted material. Take a Youtube video and re-upload it / copy a DVD, etc, that's piracy.

Are you saying that the person who downloads Avengers without paying for it is not pirating the content?
No. Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of someone else's content.

All I'm seeing is a bunch of false entitlement.

 

[freeagent]

All I'm seeing is a bunch of false entitlement.

For all the commercials that I have to watch, they should pay me.

I got rid of cable for the exact same reason.. I could just stop watching YouTube I suppose

 

[Vayra86]

Nothing on Firefox + Ublock. Sometimes the ads slip through. Most of the time they don't. This isn't the case everywhere, the Dutch on demand services seem to have found a way to either not play the video at all if you use a blocker. And they also push more and more ads through per hour, its horrible.

exactly, back in the day when it was a single 4-6 second ad, i was fine with that. they kept pushing it and pushing it, etc. greedy fucks brought this upon themselves.

ublock origin til i die boys!

Yeah one ad is fine, 5~10 seconds? Acceptable. Anything more? GTFO
But far more worrying is the fact ads can carry malware and siphon bandwidth. Its one massive wasteful money pit that cannot stop escalating. It needs checks and balances.

Much like @freeagent ... I ditched cable too for the commercial overload + the absolutely bottom barrel content. The latter on its own would have been acceptable but the combination is just one huge waste of time.

 

[BSim500]

Are you saying that the person who downloads Avengers without paying for it is not pirating the content?

Which particular copy of Avengers? If a particular distributor required that you pay for it upfront and you download a torrent, then yes that's piracy. If they are broadcasting / streaming it for free and you ignore the included adverts, then no it isn't. Using your absurd extremist black & white definitions, taking a pee break during an ad break for Avengers that's broadcast on advert-funded OTA TV channel is armed robbery...

Edit: "Piracy" is specifically "Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required". For advert funded content, permission to show it for free is given from the publishers / studios to the intermediary broadcaster (Youtube, TV channels, etc). The expectation that you must watch every single advert that intermediary shows is a separate agreement between you and that intermediary. Trying to dumb everything down into "ur a pirate / vandal" by conflating it with torrenting or "destroying billboards" is just a string of bad analogies.

As for morality, in the real world I think you'll find many people both accept some advertising is needed but are also well aware from past experience with TV, etc, that advertisers just don't know when to stop, even to the point where they behave in a way that actively pushes people into reducing "exposure" purely for reasons of sanity:-

- Where there were 5 mins of TV ads per hour, people watched them. When that grew to 20-25mins, they bought PVR's and Fast-Forwarded through the lot, and many people stopped watching TV "live" in general outside of sporting events. And nowhere was the degree of raw contempt from advertisers towards viewers more obvious than the way they used to "compress" the audio to make adverts sound much louder than the content before laws such as CALM (Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation) and various national equivalents were brought it to ban it.

- Buying a DVD is already fair compensation for the cost of the movie. But when PUO's (Prohibited User Operations = part of the DVD spec that allows locking out the FF / skip buttons ability to skip 10mins worth of forced trailers before you even reached the main menu), people started using HTPC's (ie, software like VLC that ignores them and jumps straight to the main disc menu) / ripping them.

- Paying for a movie ticket is also already fair compensation for the cost of the movie. Paying for a movie ticket (plus concessions) only to end up with 30mins of pre-roll adverts is exactly what stopped many of us from going to movie theatre's and increased torrenting in general.

- During Google's early years, the AdBlockers at the time (AdBlock Plus, etc) didn't bother blocking Google's one-line text adverts in searches. Their main focus was on the obnoxious stuff (flash ads, banner ads, animated GIF's, fake Blue Screen error messages, pop-up / pop-under spam, abusing the Windows XP "Alerter Service" Windows service (badly enough Microsoft were forced to disable it in XP SP2), browser hijacking, home-page hijacking, ActiveX malware scripts, etc). Recently the same Google has ended up directly linking to malware due to growing so big they don't even bother verifying that their advertising partners are genuine or not anymore (and that's on top of the 5 billion more obvious "Malvertising" attempts they did block - such an insanely massive number that web adblockers that block "redirects" / Javascript are virtually required on grounds of security alone...)

^ Youtube is just a repeat of the past. If they "kept it real", there wouldn't be such a backlash against "over-advertising". Instead, it's before / during / after adverts on top of 1-2min sponsorships on top of "buy our merch" on top of "subscribe to our patreon", often for video's barely 10-15mins in length. (And yes, people are complaining of the same overly loud advert BS that plagued TV and radio particularly during the 1980-2000's through to when it got banned)...

 

[Vayra86]

So, what? Do you have an argument that entitles you to view youtube with an ad-blocker that doesn't consist of "it use to have no ads".

Are you saying that the person who downloads Avengers without paying for it is not pirating the content?
No. Piracy is the unauthorized use or reproduction of someone else's content.

All I'm seeing is a bunch of false entitlement.

All I see is fair game between consumer and company. They want to make a service annoying and feed malware through advertising... they get a banhammer.

Its very, very healthy that we have tools to protect us from this nonsense. The same thing applies to piracy. It provides us, as civilians and consumers, with a bit of leverage against much wealthier corporations that try to trick us into a strategy they make money of. As long as everyone's winning, its all good. And the fact is, everyone is winning with this status quo. Content providers, people that lack the means to get something, people that do have the means, and CEO's. The whole advertising vs blocking affair is an age-old ongoing battle, and yes, it is just as twisted as our society gets.

The moment Youtube or Chrome / Chromium starts destroying adblockers definitively is the moment I'll make every effort to stay away from those apps. The grasp of commerce is far too tight already.

 

[jon_joy_1999]

Edit: "Piracy" is specifically "Copyright infringement (at times referred to as piracy) is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required". For advert funded content, permission to show it for free is given from the publishers / studios to the intermediary broadcaster (Youtube, TV channels, etc). The expectation that you must watch every single advert that intermediary shows is a separate agreement between you and that intermediary.

This comment here show you have no idea how the youtube content publication and distribution works. You have no agreement with the publisher of what you're watching. No matter what that publisher says, Youtube is the rights agreement holder when you view content on their platform. You follow Youtube's rules, or, as other people in this thread have so succinctly put it, GTFO. Otherwise you are engaging in piracy.

I see a lot of conflation of piracy and copyright infringement. While it is true that copyright infringement is piracy, piracy is not always copyright infringement.

 

[SK-1]

OPERA GX=Free YT premium.

 

[BSim500]

This comment here show you have no idea...

Piracy is not "everything that other people do that I don't personally like" which has been the running theme of your posts here. You are just twisting it to mean what you want it to mean in a way most nations laws don't reflect then throwing the word around like confetti at your personal pet-hate (adblockers). As mentioned, actual piracy is a criminal law breach (beyond even copyright infringement), not just a breach of terms of service of a free streaming platform. Create your own website called JonTube filled with ripped Blu-Rays of Avenger movies and you'll be facing actual real piracy relating lawsuits. Watch Youtube with an adblocker, and that's between you and Youtube with "piracy" related laws playing zero part. The police and lawyers won't even pick up the phone. The rest is just talking in circles.

 

[jon_joy_1999]

Piracy is not "everything that other people do that I don't personally like" which has been the running theme of your posts here.

LMAO

You are just twisting it to mean what you want it to mean in a way most nations laws don't reflect then throwing the word around like confetti at your personal pet-hate (adblockers).

No. Don't try to gaslight me.

As mentioned, actual piracy is a criminal law breach (beyond even copyright infringement), not just a breach of terms of service of a free streaming platform.

Actual piracy is the use or taking of something without the consent of the person who owns it. The legal definition is meaningless insofar as
For example, privateering is piracy.

The rest is just talking in circles.

I agree.
For the record, I'll just leave this here: