I watch YouTube with the AdBlockers on my laptop and I've been given these screens, inevitably stopping playback of the videos after you watch 3.

Then on the Fire stick I watch YouTube but with the adverts on - what do I get? An advert telling me how Hamas is the same as ISIS, some bloke telling me that there's a secret the insurance industry doesn't want me to hear, toys being promoted that are miniature versions of a Tabasco sauce bottle, and some fucking awful game of someone walking along a wall shooting zombies for my phone. What's more is that if I watch a 20 minute video I'll get these adverts every 3/4 minutes - often two together - and have to sit through it for 20/30 seconds.

If these adverts weren't so invasive, bullshit, plain questionable and wrong, I don't think anyone would mind them.

But fuck Google/YouTube - I'll use an AdBlock if I want. And if you don't want me to then I won't use your platform.

But fuck Google/YouTube - I'll use an AdBlock if I want. And if you don't want me to then I won't use your platform.

And add to that the way YT 'recommendations' don't recommend me stuff I'm at all interested in, and gives me no way to suggest the content I do want to see.

But I'm curious. YT could 'fix' this by making consent into a pop-up. But I don't run any 'AdBlockers', I run security software that prevents unwanted and potentially malicious code hitting my PC. If YT wants me to disable security to access their service, then that service better be secure. And would that make it easier to establish liability, if YT pushed an ad that contains malicious code.. which it has in the past. Or, because YT offers users no control over the types of adverts, could they be liable for delivering harmful/hurtful/hateful content to users?

And I'm also curious how the consequences of banning accounts could work, and if those could be a way to finally get rid of Google's data rape. If AlphaGoo terminates my account, it's presumably ended any contract I have with them. Surely this should be a reciprocal arrangement, so if I can no longer access the service, then AlphaGoo should no longer be accessing my data. And there'll be an easy "Google-be-Gone" process that automatically prevents AlphaGoo from collecting any future data.

Somehow, I suspect AlphaGoo won't do this, or want this given their addiction to people's personal and private data, even after contracts or services supplied by AlphaGoo have ceased.

Both of you should hunt down "SmartTubeNext" - only works on Android TV boxes alas, but removes all traces of ads and allows you to permanently remove channels from the recommendations list.

and allows you to permanently remove channels from the recommendations list.

uBlock is working for me, for now on Firefox. Next step may be to abandon that for Brave. But I don't really like the choices AlphaGoo force on us. I go through and do the 'remove channel' thing on a bunch of videos every refresh. This seems harsh, because maybe those channels might make something I am actually interested.

So why are AlphaGoo so dumb, especially when they're rolling out even more 'granular', probably intrusive and almost certainly incorrect 'interests' categories to match users with ads? Crazy idea. When I'm recommended a video, tell me why. I know there are hidden content tags they use to match content to eyeballs. So show me them. Let me tell them that no, I am not interested in lawncare services, hints, tips etc because I don't have a lawn. I may also have made the mistake of looking up 'nitro racing', but I have no real interest in RC modelling, so stop pushing me that content.

Even worse is when YT's "Looking for something different?" option appears. Sure, it'll give me something different, but never anything I'm actually interested in watching. So then it's the never ending battle of trying to stop the 'recommendations' algorithm showing me a bunch of carp I don't want to watch.

UBlock isn't working for me on the laptop. The only thing that is seems to be Brave with UBlock. But even then it stutters. It'll load a video page but not the video. You need to refresh a few times to get it to work.

They're not actually interested in profiling adverts to ones you'll actually be interested in; you are not the customer. They are only interested in giving the impression to their advertising clients that the adverts that they are spewing are somehow targeted at (not targeted to ) groups of people more likely to click on them. They couldn't give half a shit if you are caught in the crossfire, as long as they make more money.

In Firefox, if you right-click the video you want to watch, and choose 'Open link in new private window', it is showing the videos for me without issue, when the 3 strikes block comes up.

Across YouTube on every (unlinked) device I get the same two advertisers, namely:

Grammerly

&

This revolutionary heater is slashing heating bills across Great Britain. It was developed by two cleaners at a fake dog poo company in Shenzen China, one of whom was fired for using the wrong end of the brush to sweep with and has reduced the heating bills of thousands of customers. It is totally not the same as you can buy at [1]Robert Dyas and elsewhere for far less even though it looks and works the same way.

I couldn’t use Grammarly even if I wanted to because if I use PII in the document or email I’m writing and it’s transmitted to their servers then GDPR issues crop up.

The second one should be obvious and to quote Montgomery Scott “Ye cannae change the laws of physics”.

That’s it those two advertisers and they wonder why people skip/block the adverts.

[1] https://www.robertdyas.co.uk/russell-hobbs-500w-plug-in-heater

...it appears that you can still watch youtube videos in a private window, even if you've been blocked.

You can also watch videos if you log out of your Google account.

Newpipe for your phone, Smarttube for your Android TV / Firestick and Minitube for your PC it is then. They are standalone apps so the recently added Google adblock detecting JS doesn't do anything to their ability to play back without ads (for now at least)

There is also [1]Grayjay which Louis Rossmann has got something to do with.

Haven't tried it yet as it didn't install on my phone for some reason so I can't say if it's better or worse than [2]NewPipe .

[1] https://grayjay.app/

[2] https://newpipe.net/

I can't say either as I've only just heard of it (I use NewPipe), but it's good to have options so thank you and have one of these --->

It's a smart move going for YouTube, even if they are not actively blocking users who use ad blockers. Any privacy complaint related to Google gets a much harder look than if they'd gone for Forbes or Wired.

It's going to be very interesting how this ends up. I'm not convinced it will be successful though. On one hand, the likes of Google can use extraordinary means to make sure you see ads if they put their minds to it, and on the other hand, there are so many websites that depend on advertising for revenue that there will be a lot of pressure going the other way as well. Regulations in that space tend to hurt small players more than big ones.

Great article and all power to Alexander Hanff against Google. Posting anonymously because, on behalf of a website client, I do have to work with some of Google's crap analytic and shopping software, most of which is over-engineered, badly documented, and absolutely diabolical to implement and get working nowadays. When on online calls with their engineers, you get a different engineer each time and a different solution to whatever today's problem happens to be.

Regarding YouTube adblock blocking, I use uBlock Origin but, as yet, haven't seen any warning messages. However, if they do start appearing for me and I do want to watch a video then I will just use some software to download the entire video and watch it offline without interruptions.

Screw Google and YouTube.

Another ublock user and all seems good for now.

uBlock origin does the job for me and you can use it to permanently block that annoying row of "shorts".

I started getting the warnings a couple of weeks ago and last week I was completely blocked. I tried deleting youtube and google cookies and deleting cache with little expectation that it would work but it seemed to. The only difference is that playback is delayed a lot more than previously; presumably because there's a battle going on in cyberspace. Like you, if there's something I'm really interested in I download and watch it later.

UBlock is fine so far on Firefox but it does not work on Opera where I get the lovely little countdown timer.

The timer thing is rude and patronising and I don't watch at all when they pull this stunt.

They can FO and then FO some more.

I'd have thought advertisers would have caught on to the fact that anybody actively blocking adverts really does NOT want to see them. If you've taken the extra steps to install software and deal with all the other crap on most websites that breaks when you use blocking software then you are probably not a ripe target for advertising. My initial reaction to unwanted adverts is pure hate and that's not the kind of brand awareness most companies are looking for!

My initial reaction to unwanted adverts is pure hate and that's not the kind of brand awareness most companies are looking for!

This! So my usual example of why I turned to the dark side. There was a Twix ad. Catchy lil jingle, 2 blokes, 1 factory. Nah, don't fancy a Twix right now, I'm trying to watch a 10min video. Couple of minutes later.. same ad. Nope, still don't want a Twix.. and again a couple of minutes later.. Guess what ad?

So I went from being an occassional Twix buyer to never buying them again. I can look at a Twix bar, and hear that sodding jingle. So in some ways, the ad worked, but probably didn't get the call-to-action Mars was hoping for. All because of AlphaGoo's brilliant advertising platform! But this also coincided with an ad for Virgin Trains trying to convince me to travel from London to Manchester that was on heavy rotation at the same time. Not sure why, or if the Twix sold in Manchester are somehow better, and I should travel to London, then Manchester and buy one.

So that's just me. AlphaGoo has awesome data collection, customer profiling and ad matching prowess, all powered by the world's most sophisticated AI technology. But I still can't figure out how or why it would think I'd be interested in travelling to London, then Manchester.

If only there was some way I could actually express my interests, or preferences, then I may actually get to see stuff I might want to buy. Surely the big brains at AlphaGoo could understand and implement such a simple concept?

AlphaGoo seems to have difficulty categorising someone who is as likely to watch a video on how to build a wooden wagon wheel as a recipe or a flat earth debunking or a RISC-V demoboard... so on the recent 'open your force-field, earthling!' events when I've actually turned off ubo, I get offered video games for a phone I don't have...

Yes, I got recommended a load of flat-earth debunking videos as well.

Of course the earth is round, and anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot, or someone trying to make money off idiots; but I'm really not interested in watching loads of 15 minute videos of people explaining that to me.

You should write a letter and send it to the highest person at Mars you can find the address of. Maybe if people start pointing out that internet advertising is not the same as TV advertising. It's aggressive, invasive, and often repeats the same thing over and over (that some company is paying for), maybe if people higher up the food chain than the advertising wonks start getting the idea that advertising may be actively alienating people, things might start to slowly change?

"But I still can't figure out how or why it would think I'd be interested in travelling to London, then Manchester."

It doesn't care whether you're interested in that at all. It only cares about selling advertising to Virgin. Virgin should be interested but YouTube is selling to Virgin's advertising department. If the advertising department get their views that's all they're interested in, that's what they get paid for. The fact the ads might piss off potential Virgin customers is beyond their comprehension.

That is because the likes of YouTube are blind to what viewers want - only how many $$$ advertisers will pay to have their shit rammed down our throats.

Which, as you rightly say, is a virtually guaranteed way to ensure I will NEVER buy any of the products in the ads.

This must be a new emerging concept in online advertising - pay mega bucks to instil hated and loathing of your products and brand.

"pay mega bucks to instil hated and loathing of your products and brand."

Could it possibly be that all these ads are placed by the competitors of the brands they're featuring? It's the only explanation that makes sense.

" [...] when you use blocking software then you are probably not a ripe target for advertising "

The ad brokers aren't interested in those who respond to ads versus those who just put up with them. They're only interested in the number of pages viewed that display ads, as that's what they promote as exposure (and therefore "value for money") to the advertisers. The deal is between the brokers and the advertisers -- we're merely incidental to that deal, unless we block ads, thereby actively reducing 'exposure'.

This merely exposes (natch!) the lie that "exposure" is a useful measurement and that advertising clients should pay money based on this made-up number.

"I'd have thought advertisers would have caught on to the fact that anybody actively blocking adverts really does NOT want to see them."

Advertisers are basically marketroids, narcissists who believe the entire world is waiting for their next frt, brain or otherwise. They cannot comprehend that anyone will not wish to see their ads or may react negatively to their product when the ads are thrust into their unwilling faces.

The advertising industry, in the meantime, has no interest in whether ads promote dispromote or have no effect at all on their customers sales. The only thing they sell is ads to advertisers.

Freetube on desktop, NewpipexSponsorblock on Android

I use FreeTube on my Linux devices. It is excellent. Not only no Google 'ads' appear but also 'messages from sponsors' are stripped out.

I heard that Google has made an attempt to get FreeTube shut down. Fortunately, FreeTube is not easy for Google to grasp.

You know what is going to happen right?

After many years of battles, YouTube is going to get a fine that is smaller than profit generated from blocking ad blockers.

[1]A Clockwork Orange .

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS-Y5v9XcAAO52z?format=jpg&name=900x900

I've always been curious why the ads aren't burned in to the video stream on YT. The technology to do this certainly exits, and they would be unblockable and unskippable, so the reason must be commercial.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this as a solution (and it's fairly likely someone at YT has thought of it already...), and if they ever did implement it my YT hours would drop from negligible to nil. Maybe that's the reason - there is nonzero value to the borg in having me watch the occasional Big Clive or Photonic Induction video, and nonzero x 10^100 buys a lot of yachts...

I've always been curious why the ads aren't burned in to the video stream on YT. The technology to do this certainly exits, and they would be unblockable and unskippable, so the reason must be commercial.

This is going to be "easy" to fix, but maybe not so convenient. Just have an AI watch the stream and record it sans ads and then have it ready in your media library to watch at your leisure.

"I'm sorry, but as an AI instance paid for and trained by Alphabet Corporation, I am unable to remove adverts from Youtube"

As someone posted in a comment here many, many years ago, the difference between AI in fiction and the AI we have is that it's not yours: it's the corporations.

Because the ads are targeted at different markets/people. They'd have to encode and store at least 10x the initially uploaded video, and then re-encode every time the ads get rotated.

This, or real-time (or faster) video encoding for every targeted advert they insert into the playback stream, which is computationally expensive, and thus expensive in terms of hardware and power usage in a data centre. I suspect the ads would exactly have to match a "gap" in source video to avoid having to re-encode the next chunk of that (until the next video 3 minutes later). Far easier to have the ads pre-encoded at selected qualities, and inserted as a separate stream

"I suspect the ads would exactly have to match a "gap" in source video"

The could put a little swirly thing in the top RH corner of the screen when the ads were due to be served.

Same video can be seen in any number of markets worldwide, so a video for the Usain market might advertise Glock handguns quite legitimately for example but that would cause a firestorm elsewhere......ditto alcohol in the middle east, tobacco in bhutan

Or indeed tobacco in the UK. Legal to sell, not legal to advertise. Same with baby milk and prescription drugs.

"baby milk"

I was about to say 'you sure?' but then remembered that all the adverts I've seen are for 'follow on milk' which isn't baby milk.

https://www.babymilkaction.org/ukrules-pt2a

I have the little card that the nurse filled in when I was born and it is branded by SMA.

I honestly didn't know you could milk a baby, let alone legally sell the milk!

you can do A LOT MORE with babies and milk, but this innocent comment has already trigged several red flags, so I'd better run to get my co

Because then they would have to target the ads to the content of the video rather than the viewer. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Traditional TV ads are targeted that way, and they seem to make a lot more money.

...if they weren't 1: So stupid and 2: So invasive.

As for 1: A quick look through my subscribed channels shows half a dozen for automotive, a couple for firearms, a handfull of retro-technology related things, a bunch of eSports, a ton of science and technology type channels, two or three film/television reviewers, and a stack of music.

From this they have deduced, apparently, that I'm a middle aged woman who travels a lot, because I constantly get adverts about menopause related products and holidays to places I have no interest in going. I'm struggling to see the correlation.

Advertise me cars. Advertise me video games and movies. Advertise me the touring schedule and new releases from any of the dozens of musical artists I'm subscribed to. Isn't that what all this "targeted" advertising was supposed to do? Show me things I actually care about? Clearly not.

Now I could live with it if the adverts were pointless but easy to ignore, but that brings us to 2:

If they put a silent static ad on the web page that I can completely ignore? Fine. No problem. Cycle every minute or so. Why not. Or put an unskippable 30 second ad slot at the beginning of every video? I can live with that. But no, It's 30 seconds or so of ads every five minutes that's totally unacceptable - doubly so because being injected automatically as opposed to on TV where the show will be edited by the broadcaster to ensure that the advert doesn't play right in the middle of a sentence they regularly completely destroy the flow of whatever I'm trying to watch.

"because I constantly get adverts about menopause related products and holidays to places I have no interest in going"

Not just me, phew! Boots menopause ads, Jet2, booking.com, fly to Turkey (or however they spell it now) and pink hair dye.

It's almost as if they just push whatever ads they've got campaigns for at the time regardless.

And the pink hair dye! Yep. I get that one too. If only I had enough hair left to dye...

....because as soon as this crap started, I unsubscribed to most channels on YT. I only have 3 or 4 now, and IGNORE everything else.