Hacker News Reader

Comment by Etheryte | Hacker News Reader

This is, in my opinion, shortsighted. It's straightforward to create ads that you can't block on the client so long as you are the server of the ads yourself, as Google is. I'm not going to detail how since I don't want anyone on HN to get any ideas and build a business of it, but I'm sure it will happen eventually. For the time being I suspect it's cheaper to keep the current tech running since it brings in enough revenue, but if that ever stops being the case, I expect things not to end well for people who don't like ads. Google search is a good example of this, ads are literally intertwined into the search results, if you take this a few steps further you have ads that you literally can't block on the client.

View on HN

> Google search is a good example of this, ads are literally intertwined into the search results, if you take this a few steps further you have ads that you literally can't block on the client.

I'm not sure about your "few steps" so this may be moot. Is there no sufficient workaround of this nature?

  document.querySelector('.waste-of-money')?.remove();

Google might detect that the element was removed; ad blockers use CSS shenanigans to hide the element. Google might detect such shenanigans; ad blockers are forced to change. And so on. Is there really a way for Google to end this cat/mouse game in their favor?

I think the issue here is that it might take the adblockers longer to update than it takes google. If google has a team of people doing anti adblock then I suspect it would take them less than a week or maybe even a couple days to update the app to counteract whatever the adblockers come up with. And with each iteration the adblockers have to become more creative.

> Is there really a way for Google to end this cat/mouse game in their favor?

Yet another "update" to the web extension manifest.

That will affect a large number of users but if word gets out that this weird fork of Firefox[0] will allow them to view YouTube with no ads, Google is suddenly forced to enable browser attestation such that only versions of Chrome will allow people to use YouTube. That will likely affect those in the US but EU authorities sometimes like to curb these antitrust behaviors. I also get the feeling that such a change will cause them to lose American business to competitors. Amazon seems primed to start eating their lunch with Twitch; they would mostly need to start building and promoting more video on demand features.

0: It sends a "this is totally Chrome" user agent and possibly includes other APIs that YouTube will use.

> Amazon seems primed to start eating their lunch with Twitch

That seems extremely unlikely, Twitch has already destroyed a lot of the goodwill they had with creators. Policy changes (or attempts) regarding baked-in ads, revenue splits, forced exclusivity, there's probably more.

All good points and I do agree. What I mean is that they have the compute infrastructure to manage it, assuming Youtube makes some colossal mistake with the goodwill they have with viewers.

I used to work in ads, and I agree this is an arms race that the advertisers could win, at least in cases like YouTube where they control the whole stack. I don't think it would be trivial, but YouTube could do it if they decided to.

Are there any workarounds for smart tv apps (browser, player)? They probably already "won" there and the user experience is horrible.

SmartTube for Android TV

Maybe a pihole.

If it is Android, try NoRoot Firewall app.

I see the future of streaming video ad avoidance being something like an AI-empowered Tivo, possibly as an HDMI dongle.

As someone who doesn't like ads, I just pay for a premium YouTube subscription for my family.

It's not the case with Google search, though, they don't offer me a way to pay. I will rather pay Kagi instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com