Technical curiosity: how site owners are able to detect blockers and why blockers are not able to bypass detection?
As for ads I prefer Brave Browser model, where I pay websites directly, bypassing advertisers.
As for ads I prefer Brave Browser model, where I pay websites directly, bypassing advertisers.
0: https://old.reddit.com/r/brave_browser/comments/a8d34y/youtu... they try to defend the opt-out model, lol
Nope, it’s called “negotiation”. Here’s the money I want to pay for your service. You don’t want it? Fine, I’ll leave it here in case you change your mind.
(Youtube can die in my book, I’ll just shrug.)
All I'm saying is that it is "piracy" by definition, even if it's morally acceptable and basically 0 risk to partake in (AFAIK the only criminal offenders of Piracy have been booked for distribution, at least in the US).
But yeah, if you use youtube a lot, at least premium does exist as a more morally righteous choice if you don't really care about the tracking side of things and are mostly just annoyed at ads themselves. Which I'd imagine is most people.
Uh, no.
With UBO and YT Premium, the only API calls that are blocked are:
www.youtube.com/generate_204 - seems to be to detect if client is online (since YT has a desktop offline mode)
www.youtube.com/api/stats/qoe (https://stackoverflow.com/a/68823010)
www.youtube.com/ptracking - general playback tracking
It's all first-party, no other ad trackers are loaded.
All of YouTube's tracking is done via your "watch history" which is via the api www.youtube.com/api/stats/watchtime. Most blockers don't block this since, as a user, you kind of expect the most useful features of YouTube to work - tracking how far into the video you've gotten (so you can return later at the same moment), and having your watch history be used to curate your recommended feed to give you more videos.
You directly pay Brave, who then distributes funds to some participating websites. Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value of their "basic attention token" shitcoin for themselves.
This isn't worse than the way ads work anyway, so that seems fine.
> Additionally, they take a 30% cut of the value
I also don't see the problem here. They develop the browser, the infra, etc. What is the problem?
What is it that you people want?
It's open source software implementing anti-features. Why should I willingly share the value of my attention with my browser vendor?
Let's take a simple rule from EasyList:
> /snowplow.js
This blocks the loading of any URL ending in snowplow.js. To see if a visitor to my website is using an ad blocker with EasyList, I can set a global variable `window.usingAdBlocker = true;` in my main content and then later change it in a scriptcalled snowplow.js that I include (`window.usingAdBlocker = false;`). So with a fresh Chrome install, the page loads and then the script sets the variable to false. However, with an ad blocker, the script never loads and the variable remains true.
> why blockers are not able to bypass detection?
Adblockers have developed rules to block this detection mechanism. It is a cat and mouse game. For example, there's a library called 'jQuery Adblock'. So the AakList (Anti-Adblock Killer) has a rule to block scripts called `/jquery.adblock.js`
It is a cat and mouse game.