adblockers violate youtube terms of service

Poll of the Day

Page of 2
Poll of the Day » adblockers violate youtube terms of service
Post #1 was unavailable or deleted.
Youtube being able to tell an adblocker is being used breaks privacy laws.
Official Teetotaller of PotD
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain!
I got this notice again a couple times two days ago but it looks like uBlock patched itself? Haven't had any interruptions since.

It was really bad a couple years ago when Youtube was going hard though. A rough week or two.


Then go ahead and ban my account for "sexual exploitation of a minor" again.

And then take another 3 years to overturn it, AGAIN.

Get fucked, Youtube.
Hail Hydra
wow
I still haven't received any notifications about my use of an ad-blocker. I wonder if it's because I'm still using Windows 7. Maybe the ancient technology confuses Youtube or something.
This sentence has five words. This sentence has eight words. Only one sentence in this signature is true.
I'm pretty positive Youtube does this sort of testing on certain selections of accounts. There are people who just get lucky and never have issues, but also others who absolutely get targeted and destroyed by their tactics. It applies to all sorts of things, shadowbans, auto-moderation of content, etc. There is no defined rule set.

I definitely see this with Youtube comments where I will constantly be getting shadowbanned for no reason, posting completely benign, normal conversation while others will get away with way worse or even the exact same thing I was trying to post. I've been completely shadowbanned from several channels despite being on good terms with the channel owner. And everyone knows how totally unfair they are with enforcing arbitrary policies concerning content and channel bans.

I've spoken to Youtubers about this and there have been theories that hardware or cache/cookies or other user-end things could be cause, but I'm pretty positive it is exclusively on Youtube's end.
Nichtcrawler-X posted...
Youtube being able to tell an adblocker is being used breaks privacy laws.


Not in America.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912
Salrite posted...
I'm pretty positive Youtube does this sort of testing on certain selections of accounts.

Almost certainly. When they had that period of really trying to crack down a couple years ago, it was only ever a subset of people that had the site stop working for them until they waited for an update. It's not uncommon for social media in general to only push new features/changes to a subset of users at first so they can get feedback by comparing the experimental group to the control before rolling them out fully, and in the case of anti-adblock measures, that also delays the adblockers' responses because they've got fewer opportunities to collect data on what's being blocked.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Krow_Incarnate posted...


Then go ahead and ban my account for "sexual exploitation of a minor" again.

And then take another 3 years to overturn it, AGAIN.

Get fucked, Youtube.

what now
see my gundams here
https://imgur.com/a/F7xKM5r
updated 04/09/25; hg black knight squad cal -re. a
Salrite posted...
I definitely see this with Youtube comments where I will constantly be getting shadowbanned for no reason, posting completely benign, normal conversation while others will get away with way worse or even the exact same thing I was trying to post.
This is so frustrating, literally the most dystopian thing about social media. I get that ToS needs to exist to keep things generally civil, but YouTube has all but said "you get to have a voice when we say you do" with or without good reason.
Cpt_Pineapple posted...
upgrade to premium for an ad free experience
Been using Premium for ages.
They/Them not "he". Ace/Non-Binary.. Ikki defender, #1 Mega Man 2 loather.
Not a male in rl. May 30th, changes soon.
ConfusedTorchic posted...
what now
Yep. They gave very little context, but from the initial email I think it was from a video that I added to a watchlist(or favorited) with a satirical album cover. But of course, the actual video didn't get taken down. My account just got axed and this was before YouTube had even a minimal workforce, so even big time content creators(Like Pat McAfee and Maximilian) had serious issues actually communicating with them when their channels had issues.

This is the album art in question,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Babys_Revenge

But again, it was never made explicitly clear why the account was banned.

I fought it for a couple weeks, knowing that I was dealing with their bullshit algorithm and automated service.

I just tried appealing it again ~3 years later as kind of a throwaway effort and it got overturned in 1-2 days.
Hail Hydra
Disabled them on both desktop and laptop. On laptop it still throws that complaint sometimes and needs a few seconds to realize, wait, you aren't blocking. Paid membership is out of the question, I'd feel pressured to use it more than I do to "get my money's worth". I'll bear the ads.
A gentleman will walk, but never run
adjl posted...


Almost certainly. When they had that period of really trying to crack down a couple years ago, it was only ever a subset of people that had the site stop working for them until they waited for an update. It's not uncommon for social media in general to only push new features/changes to a subset of users at first so they can get feedback by comparing the experimental group to the control before rolling them out fully, and in the case of anti-adblock measures, that also delays the adblockers' responses because they've got fewer opportunities to collect data on what's being blocked.


It's also common for companies to completely ignore the vast majority of people making complaints too.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912
I've never had an issue with ads since I downloaded uBlock.
currently waiting for my turn in Master Duel.
always find it funny when people will pay for a subscription to Spotify without a second thought but are disgusted by the thought of subscribing to YouTube premium. Especially when YouTube premium gives you ad-free music AND video.

Spotify hosts a much smaller (in file size) library of content, and having Spotify premium doesn't provide more value to artists per view.

YouTube does a much more demanding and expensive task of hosting vast amounts of video, which subscription fees (and ad revenue) make possible. And your YouTube premium views directly provide more income to content creators that you watch.

Paying for Spotify and then using an ad blocker on YouTube should be a red flag about someone's judgement.
Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be.
And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me.
Can't wait for Google to ban my 20 year old Google Account because I use uBlock Origin + Blocktube + Sponsor Block.
THE opinionated king.
Revelation34 posted...
It's also common for companies to completely ignore the vast majority of people making complaints too.

YouTube has a history of ignoring any and all complaints unless one of their larger content providers complains about something on Twitter and it catches traction.

When someone with a million plus followers has a Tweet complaining about YouTube go viral, the damage control team jumps in pretty fast to "fix" the problem. But if you don't have that weight behind you, they generally don't give a shit about your complaints, even if it's about something that they themselves blatantly fucked up.
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
uBlock on my PC, DuckDuckGo on my phone and Smartube on my TV work to get rid of ads. Can't say I've had any issues and even if I did it's not like I create content on my youtube account much anyway.
One who knows nothing can understand nothing.
http://psnprofiles.com/wwinterj
Krow_Incarnate posted...


Then go ahead and ban my account for "sexual exploitation of a minor" again.

And then take another 3 years to overturn it, AGAIN.

You fucking what

EDIT Jesus Christ that's absurd.

I have that album btw, GBH kick ass.
Intel Core i7-14700f - RTX 4070Ti Super - 32GB RAM
Clench281 posted...
always find it funny when people will pay for a subscription to Spotify without a second thought but are disgusted by the thought of subscribing to YouTube premium. Especially when YouTube premium gives you ad-free music AND video.

Spotify hosts a much smaller (in file size) library of content, and having Spotify premium doesn't provide more value to artists per view.

YouTube does a much more demanding and expensive task of hosting vast amounts of video, which subscription fees (and ad revenue) make possible. And your YouTube premium views directly provide more income to content creators that you watch.

Paying for Spotify and then using an ad blocker on YouTube should be a red flag about someone's judgement.


Youtube has free music for me without Youtube Premium if I want music. There's also no red flags anyway.

ParanoidObsessive posted...


YouTube has a history of ignoring any and all complaints unless one of their larger content providers complains about something on Twitter and it catches traction.

When someone with a million plus followers has a Tweet complaining about YouTube go viral, the damage control team jumps in pretty fast to "fix" the problem. But if you don't have that weight behind you, they generally don't give a shit about your complaints, even if it's about something that they themselves blatantly fucked up.


I meant all companies in general. Facebook completely ignored everybody complaining about the UI changes for example.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912
ParanoidObsessive posted...
YouTube has a history of ignoring any and all complaints unless one of their larger content providers complains about something on Twitter and it catches traction.

When someone with a million plus followers has a Tweet complaining about YouTube go viral, the damage control team jumps in pretty fast to "fix" the problem. But if you don't have that weight behind you, they generally don't give a shit about your complaints, even if it's about something that they themselves blatantly fucked up.

Or if you make a credible threat to bring lawyers into the mix. But most creators don't have the resources to be able to do that.

Clench281 posted...
always find it funny when people will pay for a subscription to Spotify without a second thought but are disgusted by the thought of subscribing to YouTube premium.

Who said I pay for Spotify?

Clench281 posted...
And your YouTube premium views directly provide more income to content creators that you watch.

If you actually care about getting your money to creators, you need to go through their Patreon or Ko-fi or other similar service that pays them more directly. Youtube's payouts for any but the most wildly successful creators are a pittance, regardless of how many of their subscribers are premium, and the inconsistent application of their ToS/algorithms and unwillingness to protect creators from abuses like spurious copyright strikes mean that direct Youtube revenue is not a reliable source of income unless your channel is large enough to have meaningful leverage.

If you think Youtube premium is worth the money, go for it, but justifying it by saying you're better supporting creators is just lying to yourself, which is exactly what Youtube is banking on when they tack "your subscription money helps support creators!" onto their pitch for Premium.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Can't speak for others, but I use free Spotify also and accept the ads. They, at least, do not (yet) pause songs to play groceries ads to me halfway. With YouTube I am just glad they don't do so on live streams and cause me to miss part. I suspect both may be a matter of time.
A gentleman will walk, but never run
Though Spotify is also very guilty of the "hey aren't you annoyed that we interrupt you with so many ads? Pay us to make it stop!" protection racket style of marketing their premium service. I don't really have an issue with services offering meaningful perks in exchange for a premium fee, or even paywalling basic functionality that essentially frames the free experience as a free trial. I do take issue with blatantly creating problems to which they then sell the solution.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Krow_Incarnate posted...
Yep. They gave very little context, but from the initial email I think it was from a video that I added to a watchlist(or favorited) with a satirical album cover. But of course, the actual video didn't get taken down. My account just got axed and this was before YouTube had even a minimal workforce, so even big time content creators(Like Pat McAfee and Maximilian) had serious issues actually communicating with them when their channels had issues.

You can get banned for WATCHING CONTENT ALREADY ON THERE!? I'm pretty positive they form their automated enforcement in some ways like this. I've always been suspicious that they've taken something I've said once or some videos I may have watched at one time and tagged me as "undesirable" but have no idea what it could have been. But to think they'd outright delete your channel over this is insane.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
YouTube has a history of ignoring any and all complaints unless one of their larger content providers complains about something on Twitter and it catches traction.

Rather they'll do a bit of damage control to appease the masses temporarily and sweep it under the rug. Remember that time CoryxKenshin got hit with the same ridiculous auto-modderation everyone does and made a big stink because "he's black". Got Markiplier involved and it was reversed immediately and never talked about again. Funny how these issues are always forgotten about once the big names get their payout.

Honestly, YouTube Premium is worth it.
"It was so ridiculous and I have so many feelings about it."
-Virtual Energies
adjl posted...
Though Spotify is also very guilty of the "hey aren't you annoyed that we interrupt you with so many ads? Pay us to make it stop!" protection racket style of marketing their premium service. I don't really have an issue with services offering meaningful perks in exchange for a premium fee, or even paywalling basic functionality that essentially frames the free experience as a free trial. I do take issue with blatantly creating problems to which they then sell the solution.

In principle I completely agree. I've just never hesitated a second to pay for Spotify. I suppose I can justify it because it was never a user-based platform to upload content. It was a platform for established musicians to distribute their music, much like a store that sells CDs. I know these days any amateur can host their music for a fee (or even anything really as long as they format like an album, ASMR artists thrive there). But it's never felt like a platform that was marketed as free use.

I'm just thankful Youtube hasn't hidden more of their features behind a paywall like playlists or comments. But I probably shouldn't be putting that into the universe...

Edit: I guess that's not fully true. They've started compressing the hell out of their content and hiding "upgraded bitrates" behind Premium service.
Salrite posted...
But it's never felt like a platform that was marketed as free use.

That is definitely a factor. If Netflix had always been priced as it is now, had a library comparable to its current one, included ads in the lower tiers, and prohibited account sharing, I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. Because all of those things are marked downgrades from a previous state, though, people are unhappy that the service they used to enjoy has become less enjoyable. Similarly, Youtube has downgraded from the service it once provided and is charging a premium fee to remove those downgrades, and that just feels icky.

Really, though, that's where the tech industry is these days. They've run out of improvements to sell, but those numbers gotta keep going up forever, so they have to invent problems and sell solutions to them. Capitalism, ho!
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
adjl posted...


That is definitely a factor. If Netflix had always been priced as it is now, had a library comparable to its current one, included ads in the lower tiers, and prohibited account sharing, I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. Because all of those things are marked downgrades from a previous state, though, people are unhappy that the service they used to enjoy has become less enjoyable. Similarly, Youtube has downgraded from the service it once provided and is charging a premium fee to remove those downgrades, and that just feels icky.

Really, though, that's where the tech industry is these days. They've run out of improvements to sell, but those numbers gotta keep going up forever, so they have to invent problems and sell solutions to them. Capitalism, ho!


There's nobody out there that wouldn't support account sharing no matter the context.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912
Revelation34 posted...
There's nobody out there that wouldn't support account sharing no matter the context.

Obviously being able to share accounts is good for consumers. The point is that if we'd never been able to do so, people would be much more okay with that than they are in the current situation, where we used to be able to and it's been taken away. That's just the nature of people: taking away something that somebody is enjoying - especially for no good reason - makes them more upset than they would be if they'd never had it in the first place.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
ParanoidObsessive posted...
YouTube has a history of ignoring any and all complaints unless one of their larger content providers complains about something on Twitter and it catches traction.

When someone with a million plus followers has a Tweet complaining about YouTube go viral, the damage control team jumps in pretty fast to "fix" the problem. But if you don't have that weight behind you, they generally don't give a shit about your complaints, even if it's about something that they themselves blatantly fucked up.
This is actually true for nearly all companies.
There's entire news sections dedicated to this. If something like an airline screws you, you go to the news and the problem will be resolved in hours.
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
Lose 50 experience
dj1200 posted...
Honestly, YouTube Premium is worth it.

The problem is that it's pretty much a straight up protection racket.

"If you pay us money, we will protect you from the problem we ourselves deliberately created."
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
ParanoidObsessive posted...
The problem is that it's pretty much a straight up protection racket.

"If you pay us money, we will protect you from the problem we ourselves deliberately created."
And they will give you ads anyways for special events.
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
Lose 50 experience
dj1200 posted...
Honestly, YouTube Premium is worth it.
If you have an Android phone, PipePipe lets you reap those benefits for free.

You can even download videos as video or audio files, right onto your device.
"That was the dumbest pre-fight banter I've ever heard." - Neru
https://linktr.ee/KalloFox34 | SW-6764-3759-9672 | He/they | Bi | Atheist
I just... never log in.
Youtube hasn't harassed me about ad-blocking yet.
KalloFox34 posted...
If you have an Android phone, PipePipe lets you reap those benefits for free.

You can even download videos as video or audio files, right onto your device.

just use revanced like a normal person
see my gundams here
https://imgur.com/a/F7xKM5r
updated 04/09/25; hg black knight squad cal -re. a
ConfusedTorchic posted...
just use revanced like a normal person

normal people watch YouTube on their smart tv now.

people watching via a computer are only overrepresented here because the website is self-selecting nerdier than average ppl.
Take me for what I am -- who I was meant to be.
And if you give a damn, take me baby, or leave me.
I don't think normal people treat "like a normal person" as a literal attempt to represent statistical reality.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Clench281 posted...


normal people watch YouTube on their smart tv now.

people watching via a computer are only overrepresented here because the website is self-selecting nerdier than average ppl.


I wouldn't.
Gamertag: Kegfarms, BF code: 2033480226, Treasure Cruise code 318,374,355, Steam: Kegfarms, Switch: SW-1900-5502-7912
Clench281 posted...
normal people watch YouTube on their smart tv now.

then use smarttube like a normal person

Clench281 posted...
people watching via a computer are only overrepresented here because the website is self-selecting nerdier than average ppl.

i never said anything about watching on a computer
see my gundams here
https://imgur.com/a/F7xKM5r
updated 04/09/25; hg black knight squad cal -re. a
OneEyedShinobi posted...
Been using Premium for ages.
hey man you don't gotta do it for me
https://imgur.com/LabbRyN
raytan and Kana are on opposite ends of the Awesome Spectrum.
adjl posted...
Obviously being able to share accounts is good for consumers. The point is that if we'd never been able to do so, people would be much more okay with that than they are in the current situation, where we used to be able to and it's been taken away. That's just the nature of people: taking away something that somebody is enjoying - especially for no good reason - makes them more upset than they would be if they'd never had it in the first place.

How is anti-account sharing even enforceable? Sure, you could track IPs and block two people from logging into the account at the same time in entirely separate areas. But that's not how most people share accounts. You generally just have the account logged into separate devices within the same household. Or, you know, share the same streaming device with your family.
Salrite posted...
But that's not how most people share accounts.

That's the account sharing that Netflix cracked down on, where multiple households would share a single account. That was indeed pretty common before they decided to squash it in an effort to get their subscription revenue up.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Oh, well I guess that seems fair. Surprising they never considered taking that into account to begin with. That seems super easy to exploit on a user level.
It is fair enough, but they allowed it for many years and even overtly supported it (they had one ad that said something to the effect of "Love is sharing a Netflix password"), so when they both stopped allowing it and hiked their fees in a single move, it's understandable that it generated some ill will. Even more so where that was quite transparently a matter of them chasing the highs of pandemic subscription revenues because capitalism demands that number go up always regardless of the situation.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
adjl posted...
(they had one ad that said something to the effect of "Love is sharing a Netflix password"),

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/1f9ab7df.jpg
see my gundams here
https://imgur.com/a/F7xKM5r
updated 04/09/25; hg black knight squad cal -re. a
You know Uno's Commnunity Manager was sharing an account with somebody.
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
Cpt_Pineapple posted...
upgrade to premium for an ad free experience
Is this a troll, or do you genuinely go around on message boards acting as a mouthpiece for predatory corporations?

Like has already been said, Premium is a racket: They make the "free" site unusable, and charge you money for the "solution" to the problem they created.

I'll stick to uBlock Origin on Firefox (works on both desktop and mobile).

Clench281 posted...
normal people watch YouTube on their smart tv now.
Source? I'd have thought most people watch on mobile.
"Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?" -Billy Joel, Movin' Out (Anthony's Song)
Post #50 was unavailable or deleted.
Poll of the Day » adblockers violate youtube terms of service
Page of 2