• UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      Isn’t there some law that you have to visually indicate whether a given piece of content is sponsored (ad) or not? Can’t that just be detected by ad blockers to skip/hide ads?

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        There isn’t a law that I’m aware of, but typically the ad needs to be un-skippable/seek-able, which means there will always be some indication to the video player of what the user can skip or fast forward through.

        That doesn’t mean Google couldn’t just make fast forwarding/seeking a premium feature, but they’d lose a lot of user appeal if they did so they probably wouldn’t do that

        • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          20 days ago

          Germany has this law, sponsored segments must be clearly labelled. But one could just hash the ad anyways or just try to fast forward and if it doesn’t work and it would be the ad.

          • anonymous111@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            20 days ago

            I was thinking about this. Can we crowd source add hash markers, in a similar way to how Sponsor Block opperates but with hashes instead of time stamps?

            • vala@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              It would be pretty trivial for YouTube to change the hashes at random. Might require a clever caching workaround on their end but it’s totally possible to just flip a few bits before serving it.

        • hash@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          20 days ago

          Even if they do this, I wouldn’t be averse to a less on demand version of youtube. 3rd party apps will let you load a number of videos for later viewing. Would probably help me consume media more responsibly and youtube has to deal with the additional resources needed to serve all the videos I didn’t wind up watching after all.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 days ago

        I used to have a neat app on my phone that would play “Interdimensional Cable” bits, or just silence, over Spotify ads. It made it a lot more usable.

        Their ad gets played, I don’t have to hear it screaming at me. Win/Win right?

      • XpeeN@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        It depends on their implementation. If they decided to somehow serve the ad itself and serve the video only after the ad is done, I think that you won’t be able to skip it, maybe only censor it to see a blank video screen or something.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        European law says you need to identify paid content, it’s up to the channel to decide how, it’s usually “AD” written in a moderately contrasty color in the top right of the screen

    • j4k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      20 days ago

      I’m not sure about the mechanism, but isn’t this the same thing as ancient early DVR’s like TiVo that would record from the cable stream and omit the ads segments?

      • MimicJar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        20 days ago

        That’s the thing, I don’t think the mechanism exists (or works) yet. I’m confident it will someday, but I didn’t think it worked yet.

          • Squiddlioni@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            20 days ago

            Twitch (and YouTube currently) switches to a new content stream to play an ad, which is easy to detect and block in an extension. If I understand the tech correctly, server side ads would be stitched into the playing content stream. The extension would have to know the content of the video to know that an ad is playing. There are some clever ways that might be caught (looking for spikes in bitrate, volume differences, etc), but none of that currently exists in the software in the OP.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      20 days ago

      IIRC, Twitch uses similar ad injection. Ad blockers get around it by opening new video streams until they find one that isn’t running an ad. Could be wrong though, I’m parroting an uncited comment.

      • Wolfram@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        Even then, the only fool proof way of getting around server side ads is using an adblocking proxy that pipes the video stream into a different country. And public proxies available are not foolproof because of excessive traffic or whatnot.

        • Wolfram@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          And specifically this is for TTV.LOL revolving around Twitch.

          I think the same applies to YouTube in the same countries Twitch can’t play ads in. But I haven’t seen anything about YouTube adblocking proxies like TTV.LOL.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 days ago

      They can block some kinds of server-side ads. And if google has those already, they have been quite successful against youtube.

      But yeah, they won’t block all server-side ads.

      • Ignotum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Your browser just receives a single video file, there’s no way to tell where in that video there’s an ad, if there even is one

        You can’t remove nor replace it if you don’t know what to remove or replace

  • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    It’s so weird that YouTube is their second most profitable venture after adsense. It’s like they thought, we have a virtual monopoly on internet ads, Internet video, and web browsers. Let’s combine their power to make people watch non stop ads while tracking them worse than the CIA. Then, let’s be very surprised when people don’t like us and we get hit with antitrust lawsuits. Fuck Google.

    • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      And all they would need to do is offer a YouTube ad free plan that’s at a sensible price without any of the YouTube music crap included.

      But no… They keep trying to shove the YouTube Premium bundle down our throats and no one wants it. We just want ad free.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      Then, let’s be very surprised

      They’re not the least bit surprised. They did the math. The profit is more than the penalty.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Those fines are just the cost of doing business.

        Guess we should switch to incarcerating members of the board if we want them to really feel it.

  • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    What’s funny to me is how they are in a fight for their company with the FTC, and they want to continue provoking people by increasing their revenue on the back of their users on a service they might have a technical monopoly on? Hmmmm…

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    20 days ago

    The problem is when they start doing in stream ads, that will require something new. That said, people have been doing that with cable for a while, it’ll be real interesting to see what clever stuff comes out to detect them in stream

    • PSoul•Memes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      20 days ago

      I assume something similar to sponsor block, some algorithm to identify ad segments and some user feedback to confirm. Unless I’m mistaken as to how sponsor block works?

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        20 days ago

        Sponser block works via user input

        People will watch the videos, report the segments that are sponser slots, and then when people watch the video they can upvote or downvote the accuracy of the report.

        In stream ads would be a hard one to tackle because YouTube would likely inject them randomly into the stream to boost engagement (readas, prevent people skipping them easily).

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          20 days ago

          if they were randomly placed, then couldnt you have a sponsor-block type system where instead of the ad segments being marked and skipped, information about the video is externally stored somewhere (like perhaps a really low res screenshot of the video every couple seconds, or some number generated algorithmically by a frame of video), and the results should be the same for all users for the actual video part, but if the ads are placed randomly, the ad section will suddenly not match the data other users had, prompting the video to skip until it matches again (with a buffer included if they remove the ability to move forward)

          • Kushan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            20 days ago

            You don’t need anything so complicated.

            Take two copies of the same video, diff them and only keep the parts that match.

            We can also build up a database of as signatures to automatically identify them without requiring a watermark - we already have the technology to do this for detecting intro sequences for skipping.

        • 42Firehawk@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 days ago

          In that case the ads are video only, no clicking on them, including to skip or anything else. So it would be detecting that trying to change where you are in the video doesn’t change anything (and exclusively playing via your 3 second buffer)

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      20 days ago

      This is something that would be a surprisingly good use case for machine learning. Fingerprint the ads by watching ahead in the stream, then skip that section.

      Actually, I think older algorithmic methods will work. I think that’s how TiVo worked. The annoying part is you’ll have to wait a bit at the start of the video.

    • lohky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      20 days ago

      It’ll require a new mother fucking video platform. We need to just collectively let YouTube die and move on.

              • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 days ago

                A fair argument. I haven’t subscribed yet either since we’re trying to save money right now. Once we can though, it seems to be a great next step over YouTube

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  Yeah, I’ve never checked it out, but a lot of content creators I like use it. I’d like to be able to support them with a subscription instead of using YouTube and blocking all their ads. For the moment, I can’t though.

                  But, I do wish there were a free video platform that competed with YouTube and that wasn’t controlled by a trillion dollar company. Because YouTube has no competition, they completely screw video creators when it comes to Content ID and copyright strikes. They also make the site suck for people who just want to watch videos, bombarding them with ads and so-on. The DMCA is a bad law, but what Google put into place on YouTube goes far beyond what the DMCA requires, and makes it way too easy for rich people / companies to suppress anything they don’t like, while making it difficult for their users. If YouTube had a real free-videos competitor, it would push both of them to offer features that users and/or video uploaders wanted.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes its primary use, music, pointless to me.

    Another issue is Pandora, they keep forcing mobile site on Desktop User Agent setting and I work too many hours to go in and change the identifiers needed to make it work. Their app is busted as well, it asks for permissions and will semi-frequently crash when I dont give them permissions.

    The whole internets basically becoming shit because of corporate incompetence. Not even willful malice, just idiocy.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      That’s because they want you to pay a subscription fee for YouTube music.

      For the Pandora app, they don’t want you using it if you don’t give them permission to do whatever it is they want to do.

      It is malicious. It’s often incompetence too, but it’s also malicious.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 days ago

        Even if they benefit from me using YT Music, they make no sales pitch at any point leading up to me seeing the button is gone and leaving the platform. They are just missing out on tons of ad revenue from users that otherwise would have stayed and listened for hours.

        And Pandora also assuredly did not design their app to crash.

    • kaotic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      I don’t know this for sure, but I feel like this is something you can do with freetube. Regardless, it’s worth looking into.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        20 days ago

        I don’t like using apps to start with tbh, 100% pass on that. Installing random software to phones should never have become so commonplace.

        • scutiger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 days ago

          I agree. We have mobile web sites for just about everything. Apps should really only be for when the requirements are too complex for a website. Webapps are probably convenient alternative for most apps.

          Hell, I can do my banking on the mobile site, so why do I need to install an app and share my phone’s contacts and precise location? Why does it need to access my phone’s storage and sensors and ability to make calls?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            I use an app for local banking because the encryption is a little better and there is potential for browser addons to view the page data, but TBH I wouldn’t trust a Wells Fargo or US Bank app lol.

            • scutiger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 days ago

              I run GrapheneOS, so I can more explicitly set permissions and scopes, but the app won’t run without all the permissions enabled, so I won’t use it.

              The only thing the app can do that the website can’t is deposit checks with a picture, and considering how rarely I use checks, it’s not something I need an app for.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        Fun little piece of trivia: my primary use of YouTube was, in fact, music, you illiterate nimrod.

        • apemint@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          Fun little piece of trivia: Originally, nimrod used to mean “skillful hunter” (after Nimrod, the biblical figure) but then in 1940 Bugs Bunny sarcastically called Elmer Fudd a “poor little nimrod", and kids of the time not knowing the reference, simply assumed it was an insult on Elmer’s character.

          And that’s how a cartoon rabbit single handedly changed the meaning of a word.

        • dwindling7373@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Clearly. That’s still in no way the primary intended use of YouTube because, you know, video?

          You over redundant lossless head!

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            19 days ago

            Lets read my statement back, abridged

            its primary use … to me.

            Is this like a sentence structure that doesnt exist in other languages or were a nonnegligible number of lemmings homeschooled?

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              I mean, it’s obvious what you meant, but that’s still awful grammar on your part.

              When read properly, your wording means that you are stating that YouTubes’ primary use is music, which is useless to you.

              Getting to your actual meaning requires interpreting around the literal meaning of what you wrote.

            • dwindling7373@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              15 days ago

              The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes its primary use, music, pointless to me.

              This, my humorous fellow netizen, means:

              Something AND something make the primary use (of said thing, YouTube), music (the specification of what is the primary use), pointless to me (such that I did not find said primary use any longer possible).

              We know what you mean because we are charitable enought not to assume you think the primary use of youtube is music, but you fucked the wording up and I made fun of you for that.

              What you wanted to say should have been phrased as it follows:

              The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes my primary use, listening to music, impossible.

              Now if public school in your country were better funded, you’d understand that my poking fun of you also had a different implication: it’s not that unreasonable for YouTube to stop people from sucking huge bandwith to stream videos just for the minimal amount of sound data attached.

  • archonet@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    20 days ago

    not pictured: the pihole just out of frame, holding a shotgun

      • SKBo@lu.skbo.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        It blocked YouTube ads when ads where served from other domains or subdomains. Now that they’re served from the same subdomains as videos, it’s not blocking anymore.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Google bought YouTube before there were ads. The ads were always Google’s own ads from their own domains so Pihole could never block them.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          all these people missing the part where I said “holding a shotgun” – I guarantee you’ll never see a YouTube ad on your network again if no data from their servers ever gets past your router. It’s not a subtle or precise option, but it is highly effective. Much like a shotgun.

          Then you can just use peertube, piped, or invidious when that gets fixed

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              never underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of spiteful pirates. It’s been a while since I last used invidious, but I can’t imagine it being permanently broken. in the meantime – Piped, then?

              If things get real stupid, we might have to employ AI to identify and strip ads from videos before mirroring. edit: Someone has, in fact, already trained an AI to identify ads in a video, with apparently 97.4% accuracy. So, the hard part’s already been done.

              • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                20 days ago

                There has been some back and forth between Goolag’s countermeasures and Invidious’ countermeasures before arriving at the current situation, Invidious seemingly having lost the battle.

                From their git issue tracker:

                Hello,

                Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

                Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore. (Some datacenter IPs may still work, but that’s a matter of time until they don’t anymore.) … This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

                • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  You can still self-host Invidious. I’m doing this for 1-2 weeks without any problems. What does not work: Public instances hosted in data centers, because YouTube blocked lots of cloud IPs.

              • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 days ago

                Newpipe works on Android and Freetube works on Linux. I guess a local invidious instance works, too. But then, you’d lose pooling.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              explain the part where I misled anyone? Do you still get YouTube ads even after blocking YouTube’s servers? I’d be interested to see that, if so. Otherwise, I forgive your stupidity.

      • USSMojave@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        I love how people will complain about ads on YouTube and then go on to complain that PeerTube sucks because “who’s going to pay the hosting fees?” 🙄 For the record I like PeerTube but Android clients are ass right now

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          That’s not my biggest complaint. The problem is it isn’t being pushed forward. It needs some serious work to even be remotely compared to YouTube.

          It is getting better but I don’t think the current leadership is agrees I’ve enough. I’d like to see it move to its own legal entity with dedicated budgeting. They need to raise some serious money to get competitive. Developers are expensive but they do much better work than a few French guys.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 days ago

      That’s something like a cleaver, so it’s got a blunt tip that looks like it’s going through her blouse.

      • Baguette@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Cleaver is a bit more wide to be better at cutting through bone and stuff. I’d say its closer to a santoku knife though usually the tip is more tapered downwards

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Nah the blade edge is straight and the spine curves down. Great for chopping small and medium sized vegetables.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      20 days ago

      It works really well, I want to support them and donate but I’m afraid YouTube will find a way to block them like they did to others…

  • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 days ago

    I am not for ads but what is so difficult about adding them to the video stream. This should make adblockers useless since they can’t differentiate between the video and the ad. I could just imagine it would be difficult to track the view time of the user and this could make the view useless since they can’t prove it to the ad customer. I have no in depth knowledge about hls but as I know it’s an index file with urls to small fragments of the streamed file. The index file could be regenerated with inserted ad parts and randomized times to make blocking specific video segments useless.

    • Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      19 days ago

      You would also have to make skipping to any point in the video impossible then as folks could just jump ahead until they are past the embedded ad.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        Out of order requesting of segments could be detected as well as faster requests. This would at least lead to a waiting time for the length of the ad.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        What if all ads are 30seconds long, would it be impossible to lock skipping anywhere for the first 30seconds of every video?

      • sibannac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        I was having some problems with playback on youtube with “buffering”, random skips, the video reloading, etc. It turns out that those pauses and skips were for ads that uBlock stopped. Channels with more ad placements(new videos from large channels, large companies) would stop more often. Looking at the logs for Ublock showed me that yt does track how much of the video you have watched regardless of where you started. Say I load a video and skip to the middle. It will do a callout for time watched.

        I am not sure if I’m right but anyone else could correct or expand on this as I am no expert in how youtube does anything these days.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      19 days ago

      Twitch already does this for their livestreams and has been doing it for years. I’m just surprised that YouTube has taken this long to get around to injecting advertisements into the video stream. Although I think if YouTube decided to try ad injection the adblocking community would fire back with something novel to thwart their efforts and the eternal arms race would continue.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        I’ve read in that thread that there are already ad blockers for twitch too but I haven’t looked up how they work or how twitch inserts the ads.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        If there’s timed annotations (like say for closed captions or chapters/sections), then there will be some sort of mechanism to line them up with the modified stream. Then compare that with a stream without ads (which might require manually removing all ads or using a premium account where ads aren’t inserted) and you’ll be able to estimate regions of the stream where ads have been inserted. If the timed annotations are dense, you could see where the ad begins and ends just from that.

        Also if the ads themselves include timed annotations, there would be a difference in that meta data that would give it away immediately.

        Or if ads are supposed to be unskippable, the metadata will need to let the client know about that. Though they could also do that on the server side and just refuse to stream anything else while it’s serving an ad.

        Given that, the solution might be to have a seperate program grab the steam and remove the ads for later playback. Or crowdsource that and set up torrents, though that would be exposing it to copyright implications.

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 days ago

        The most likely situation is just having apps that watch the content, trim the ads off, then drop it off into a folder.

        You get home, watch your downloads, put it up for the night.

    • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 days ago

      I worked at a video ad server that offered a stream stitched solution going back to 2013. It comes down to development work/cost that the companies need to take on. Ultimately they would benefit from the cost required, but they wanted to be cheap and do a client side solution instead.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 days ago

        Ah yes that makes a lot of sense. Googles war on adblockers seems really expensive but we don’t know the numbers maybe it’s still cheaper.

        • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it’s not cheap.

          It is weird that Google, with it’s infinite pockets, hasn’t pushed a stream stitched solution all these years until recently.

          • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            19 days ago

            YouTube serves probably dozens of formats/bitrates, and has spent years tweaking how it ingests, transcodes, and serves videos. Adding in-stream ads might have been a bigger engineering task in that environment. Depending on the percentage of users/viewers avoiding ads, it might not have been worth the return.

            • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 days ago

              You are correct, which goes into the cost category of doing a stream stitched integration. Also, when I left said ad server in 2016, I think I recall HLS streaming primarily supported by Apple devices. Devices like Roku’s (don’t quote me on that) didn’t support it at the time so a lot of companies looked at where the majority of their streaming was occurring and decided it wasn’t worth the hit.

            • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              As I know they transcode every uploaded video to their preferred format. They could use the same infrastructure for the ads. But maybe it’s really too expensive.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 days ago

      It already happens, videos contain sponsored segments added by the creator.

      But even those have a solution in the form of Sponsorblock, which crowdfunds the location in the video containing sponsored segments in order to skip them.

      Google should face the fact that they won’t ever be able to win.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        Sponsorblock works with static timestamps provided by users. This would not work if the ads are inserted at randomized times.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          Even at randomized times, we could create an algorithm to detect them.

          Especially since they are obliged by the EU to clearly label ads. So just look for the label.

          • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Ah ok I didn’t know the EU thing. For the algorithm it’s a cat and mouse game. You could try to detect it by hash signatures of the segments or some kind of image detection but they could in turn add bytes to change the signature or other attributes. Could require a lot of effort on the blocking site to have the indicators up to date.

        • Lennny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          For even trying to come up with ideas of how Google can fuck us even harder, some of these posters need a necktie from Colombia.

    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      Cause you need to insert it every time for every viewer. People get different ads and those ads obviously change over time. So embedding one ad into the video permanently makes no sense. I’m pretty sure YouTube does it the way they do cause the alternative is not feasible.

      • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        You can still do dynamic ad serving in a stream stitched integration. It’s just that the content and the ads are being served by the same CDN, hence why you can’t block the ads without also blocking the content. In the manifest file there are m3u8 chucks, the file is essentially broken up into 5/10 second chunks, and when the video segment chunk is coming to an ad break, it stitches in dynamically an ad m3u8 chunk that the ad server dynamically selects based on the ads they currently have trafficked in their system.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        That wouldn’t make sense in the case of hls since the stream consists of multiple fragments of a video and you would just insert the ad fragments. This would only require changing the index file which could be done again and again with no effort and needs no reencoding of the video file.

  • sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    There is a whole topic in wasm called server side rendered DOM.

    I hardly think there is a chance to block adds when they achieve it to render all the content on their side.