this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
2080 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

59590 readers
4795 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free?

Obviously not, but there is nothing to stop Google from making Youtube a paid service and drop that charade about adblockers.

[–] Demuniac@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Google's main source of income is ads across the board, so fighting adblockers is certainly in their best interest

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

And users blocking all ads as long as Google is illegally tracking their online movement is in their best interest as well.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Fine. But it need to fight by the rules.

It is not up to discussion: Youtube want to serve video to EU user ? They need to follow EU rules. If the rule says that adblocker detection technologies (or attempt) are illegal Youtube has no really a say in it.

[–] Demuniac@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hell yeah they should, I'm not disputing that, but there's so many here pretending like it's somehow unethical for Google to fight against ad blockers, and I am arguing that.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

But to be clear, that is not what the EU law being cited here says. It says something that may be interpreted as it. I hope that is how it gets interpreted. But that is not what it says.