• YouTube is testing server-side ad injection to counter ad blockers, integrating ads directly into videos to make them indistinguishable from the main content.
  • This new method complicates ad blocking, including tools like SponsorBlock, which now face challenges in accurately identifying and skipping sponsored segments.
  • The feature is currently in testing and not widely rolled out, with YouTube encouraging users to subscribe to YouTube Premium for an ad-free experience.
  • @Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    861 year ago

    I’ll just write a greasemonkey script that detects unskippable time and mute audio. Let’s play this game google, fuckin I dare ya.

        • Rentlar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Youtube 2026: you are no longer allowed to skip ahead in videos in order to blend the video and ad “experience” together.

      • @GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At this point you can just replace the video with the same video using a timestamped link from just before the ad started. Under IPv4 they can’t tell if it is the same person/device requesting the same video. So unless they put the ad at exactly the same timestamp (which they won’t) you can just blank out the video when an ad starts and replace the stream with the same video using the timestamp to start the video where you left off.

    • Nora
      link
      fedilink
      English
      131 year ago

      I’m pretty sure ads will likely be different audio level or light level that would be detectable. If there is no option to detect the ad via API that would be one way to know when the ads begin and end.

    • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Or use it to implement a script that just downloads the video and cuts the ads out entirely for later watching.

      Or, failing any of those, a script that pops up a reminder that YouTube has unskippable ads so you can back out and just do something else with your time.

  • kingthrillgore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    811 year ago

    Enjoying YouTube is quickly becoming a case of the juice not being worth the squeeze

    • @CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -671 year ago

      Drink the Kool-aid instead and join Premium. It’s great. YouTube is my primary source of video entertainment. No ads on any device and countless thousands of hours of math and science videos, SNL clips, educational videos, game reviews, and on and on.

      For the cost of two beers a month, I get access to the best video library in the world with no ads, plus saved video progress so you can resume videos later, and YouTube Music to boot.

      Why everyone on Lemmy thinks everything in the world should be free when it costs money to run the servers and pay content creators is beyond me. Makes no sense.

      • @Leg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        521 year ago

        You sound like an ad. It triggered my uncanny valley response. Please never do that again.

      • @InternetUser2012@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        291 year ago

        I will never pay Google a dime. They make enough off of us. It’s really easy to download the video you want to watch and watch it on a stand alone player with you guessed it, NO FUCKING ADS.

      • @WormFood@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        261 year ago

        as an occasional creator of internet videos,I would much rather host my own videos, because bandwidth is actually very cheap. but YouTube has a complete monopoly on internet video, so I have to host my video on their website, subject to their weird and arbitrary conditions, their trigger happy copyright system, and their general terrible treatment of their creators. they pay an absolute pittance for impressions, which is why most professional YouTubers use other revenue streams

        the company, Google, that you are paying, didn’t make the videos, doesn’t fairly compensate the people who did, and they are effectively holding them and the very concept of internet video hostage

        people on Lemmy mostly support a free, non-corpo, decentralised internet instead of the parasites at Google because Lemmy is free and decentralised and non corporate

        get real

      • Rentlar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        What you don’t understand is that if YouTube manages to get enough people by the balls with their anti-adblocking efforts, the next step is to start jacking up the subscription price year after year to see how much people are willing to pay.

      • @lando55@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I signed up for a family plan a couple years ago and it’s honestly one of the last subscriptions I would cancel. I can justify it by the literally hundreds of hours of watching ads me and my family would have been subjected to otherwise.

      • @kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        I prefer subscription models. That way I’m paying with my money and not my content. Of course with Google you’re doing both… but in principle I support it. I pay for a family plan and have some friends/ family on it.

        It hate ads and to me it’s easily worth the monthly fee. I looked up a YouTube video on a TV that wasn’t signed in and there was like 60 seconds of ads! I’ve had YouTube premium / red for years I didn’t realize it was getting so bad.

        But yeah, I support subscription model. More sustainable and honest way for a website to make a profit. In a subscription you are the buyer and the website is the product. In a free model ad companies are the buyer and you are the product.

        They have more incentive under the subscription model to create a better experience for the user. In a free they have incentive to squeeze user as much as possible. I think it’s one of the main drivers of enshittification

      • @littlecolt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I pay for YouTube. It is without a doubt the best subscription I pay for, that I get major use out of. I know people are hardcore anti-ad and Google is like Ad Satan, but if you can afford it, YouTube is unironically worth it.

      • @Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        The monthly payment for my family subscription is less than 2 tickets to the movies, not including gas, popcorn, kids, etc.

        Easily the most bang for the buck entertainment we get, we watch hours of YouTube every day. News, tech reviews, travel, kids songs, tutorials…

        I canceled Disney+ and Netflix, but YouTube premium is not going anywhere.

    • @foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      Lol this would mean that every website running a looped video in the bg will now haved ads play. Nice.

    • @perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Once several different instances have downloaded the same video, they could share information on which segments are the same?

      Ads would change for each download based on all the factors used in the automated ad auctions.

  • @Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    221 year ago

    And I’m testing no longer using YouTube.

    Cable was gone years ago, followed by all streaming. Soon all I’ll have left are games and hobbies.

  • Laurel Raven
    link
    fedilink
    English
    201 year ago

    I honestly wondered why they haven’t done this yet for years

    • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      It’s quite likely that the cost actually outweighs the gains. Adblocking really isn’t all that prevalent across Internet users as a whole. I think the stats are something like 10% or lower.

      • @buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        And yet Google is investing all this time and money into trying to block the blockers. It’s really quite stupid.

        • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Well, most of their efforts have been relatively low cost on their end. Stuff like manifest v3 isn’t actually particularly expensive to do. Just requires you to have near total capture of the web browser market.

          • @buddascrayon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Stuff like manifest v3 isn’t actually particularly expensive to do.

            Oh yes, a complete overhaul of the way their browser engine works is absolute child’s play and doesn’t cost a thing. 🙄😒

        • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          Yes, but server-side injection, if I understand it correctly, means you have to actually remux the videos into a single stream. That’s additional processing load, which is basically their main cost of business.

    • @cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      It’s costly; either you prepare encodes ahead of time with different ads and serve that appropriately, or you splice ads live for each request, which is also costly in resources. You can’t get away with just a few variation; ads are usually targeted. It also come with other issues, like, it is mandatory in a lot of place to clearly identify ads, so there should be an obvious marker somewhere. If it’s in the UI, it can be detected and replaced live by a video of kittens for the duration of the ad, so I suppose they also have to handle any signal in the video… (It’s speculation, I didn’t get any of these yet).

      I’m curious to see if this will hold, and how we will run around it in the long run.

      • @Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        So much effort, dev time and resources just to fight users to make the experience worse and push them to alternatives to squeeze out the tiniest margin of extra ad money. Plus I’m sure this’ll be countered almost immediately. I’d be shocked if ad blockers took more than a few days to find a way to detect and neuter these ads.

        This is some accelerated enshittification.

  • bean
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why should I pay or watch ads to listen to someone tell me I need to • like and subscribe • who’s sponsoring them • a life story

    … before getting to the small percentage of possible useful information therein?

    I’ve taken to using Ai to summarize video content just to be able to review if the video even contains an answer or information which is relevant.

    I know I’m just one use case, that I don’t watch a ton of other content. It’s usually how to do something or fix something or configuration of something. I’ve sat through countless ads and videos which just wasted my time and left me frustrated trying to find information.

    Panning for gold through endless kaka.

    • @fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve taken to using Ai to summarize video content just to be able to review if the video even contains an answer or information which is relevant.

      That sounds interesting. Could you tell me how? Using OpenAI api to summarize transcripts or something?

      • bean
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ll probably get hammered for this, but then again, you’ll have to pay for API access anyway. I’ve been testing out notegpt.io (not affiliated). Exactly because of my reasons listed, and because I often have to research or do trainings, I needed ways to save time and ‘sift’ through lots of information. I used to just play videos in say 1.5 speed, but even then it’s sometimes hard to stay focused or you might miss something and have to stop and go back. Sometimes language is a barrier too. Not to mention the ads. So for my own sanity, I’ve been testing that out. It’s been pretty damn good actually. I can get by on the lowest tier and you can try it free too. Again it’s not for everyone, but I’d rather give them money than Google for their Anti-customer behavior.

    • @Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      191 year ago

      Yep, can I play it at 2x speed or skip ahead? If not, then it’s the ad. At the very least blank the video and mute the sound. I’ll enjoy a moment to breath and consider if there’s something better I should be doing.

  • @3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    This wouldn’t be a problem IF content creators were paid a fair share. I wouldn’t actually mind ads nearly as much knowing that the channels I enjoy watching were getting paid reasonably for every ad that I watched. Google has the technology to make it possible.

    • @GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Some people said that skipping is blocked during the ad. But if that is the case I am sure either the timestamp is predictable or somewhere on the client side you could find the information about the timestamp.

      • IndescribablySad@threads.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That’s neat, it’d be identifiable in a fashion similar to missile logic. You know where ads are based on where they aren’t. Actually skipping it would be difficult but muting and doing something else for a predetermined period has been a workaround since radio.

      • @PixelAlchemist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Google’s own Shaka sdk (video playback with ads) gives ad markers in the initial video manifest so that they can be marked on the timeline, so hopefully it’ll be trivial. Usually (but not always) with SSAI, the ads are spliced into the stream just before being sent to the client. That way if a user has just recently watched an ad pod, the server can choose to ignore that marker for a better UX in hopes that they don’t bounce if ads are too frequent.

      • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I doubt it… They couldn’t even manage to block FFWD on their own website for the longest time. I switched to using alternative front ends long ago, but back when I just used YT directly from my phone’s browser, spam tapping +5s a few times would bypass the ad.

      • Baggins [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        If skipping is blocked in the ad, the client must know it’s playing an ad somehow?

  • @ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    It sounds like this would be easy for tools like SponsorBlock to label and skip segments as ads. However, it would be tough on smaller channels where people might not be labeling them as such.