2317
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] florge@feddit.uk 115 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.

YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.

[-] Flaimbot@lemmy.ml 176 points 1 year ago

that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 149 points 1 year ago

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

This is why I've never had an issue blocking ads. Pick a couple creators you like, join their patreon or buy some merch. You owe YT nothing.

[-] onichama@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

This so much! Same argument for piracy tbh.

load more comments (34 replies)
[-] Bipta@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

Just replying to confirm that "strictly necessary" has never meant, "makes us money." It means technically necessary.

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 48 points 1 year ago

Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also required should be YouTube accepting liability for damage done by malicious ads or hacks injecting malware onto user systems via ad infrastructure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Their precedent is that they sold our data for 20 years before this and are now the biggest company in the world, so they can go pound sand.

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don't "sell" user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it's not in their interest to sell it.

[-] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

That's a very good point. I'm not very aware of EU regulations, I wonder if there has been established precedent in court

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
2317 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

60148 readers
2876 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS