this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
2121 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

58306 readers
3209 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
[–] florge@feddit.uk 70 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.

YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.

[–] Flaimbot@lemmy.ml 130 points 11 months ago (2 children)

that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 22 points 11 months ago

Just replying to confirm that "strictly necessary" has never meant, "makes us money." It means technically necessary.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Also required should be YouTube accepting liability for damage done by malicious ads or hacks injecting malware onto user systems via ad infrastructure.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't the hacker just be liable instead?

[–] rooster_butt@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Because Google is the one trying to force consumers to raw dog the internet.

[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Their precedent is that they sold our data for 20 years before this and are now the biggest company in the world, so they can go pound sand.

[–] Steeve@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

In the interest of making criticisms factually correct, they don't "sell" user data, they make money through targeted advertising using user data. They actually benefit by being the only ones with your data, it's not in their interest to sell it.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

That's a very good point. I'm not very aware of EU regulations, I wonder if there has been established precedent in court