Irish eyes may not be smiling
  •  cryptix   ( @cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de ) English
    11•11 months ago

    Its their platform . its their choice. We don’t have a choice to force them to allow adblockers. There is always a choice to load content after the ads are served . If they go that route then no adblocker can bypass it.

    •  LinkOpensChest_wav   ( @LinkOpensChest_wav@beehaw.org ) English
      8•11 months ago

      It’s their choice, and I would simply not use YouTube. Access to YouTube specifically is not very concerning to me.

      But if they try to normalize this or even attempt to influence legislators that adblockers should be restricted in any way by law, then I would be concerned, and for this reason I think it’s important to articulate right now that there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about using an adblocker.

  •  AutoTL;DR   ( @autotldr@lemmings.world ) BEnglish
    11•11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Interview Last week, privacy advocate (and very occasional Reg columnist) Alexander Hanff filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) decrying YouTube’s deployment of JavaScript code to detect the use of ad blocking extensions by website visitors.

    YouTube’s open hostility to ad blockers coincides with the recent trial deployment of a popup notice presented to web users who visit the site with an ad-blocking extension in their browser – messaging tested on a limited audience at least as far back as May.

    “In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification over the application of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and whether or not consent would be required for all access to or storage of information on an end user’s device which was not strictly necessary,” Hanff told The Register.

    "Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher).

    Hanff disagrees, and maintains that "The Commission and the legislators have been very clear that any access to a user’s terminal equipment which is not strictly necessary for the provision of a requested service, requires consent.

    “This is also bound by CJEU Case C-673/17 (Planet49) from October 2019 which all Member States are legally obligated to comply with, under the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] – there is no room for deviation on this issue,” he elaborated.

    The original article contains 1,030 words, the summary contains 258 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!