YouTube's server-side ads resulted in a black screen for ad blocker users
YouTube's server-side ads resulted in a black screen for ad blocker users
Ad blocker users say that they are seeing a black screen when trying to play a video on YouTube. Here's what happened.
Mashable reports that users ran into a black screen on YouTube, and that it stayed for about 6 seconds before the video began playing. The reports indicate it affected several browsers including Firefox, Edge, Vivaldi.
Some users joked that they would rather see a black screen than an ad. While that's certainly a better experience, it does waste precious seconds of our time. A simple workaround for the black screen on YouTube is to just refresh the page, hit F5 as soon as the page starts loading. uBlock Origin's filters were updated with a patch to resolve the problem, the add-on updates its filters automatically. If you are still experiencing the black screen issue, just open the extension's dashboard and manually update the filters. This tug-of-war is getting annoying, but it appears to me that Google's efforts are actively promoting the use of ad blockers, instead of attracting new subscribers.
You're viewing a single thread.
Im honestly waiting for Google to sue for blocking ads in a last ditch effort.
Adblocking has been ruled a constitutional right in Germany. Let them try.
Axel Springer tried again recently, arguing that ad blockers "infringe copyright by altering HTML elements on their sites", and Germany waits, because a similar lawsuit happened in Luxembourg which will be settled on the European level.
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/bundesgerichtshof-will-entscheidung-auf-europaeischer-ebene-abwarten-104.html (in German)
Another article, where they tried the exact same thing two years ago: https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/landgericht-hamburg-ueber-adblock-plus-springer-verlag-verliert-erneut-a-5e058ee7-e0fa-4f0e-aa10-d95d9cfad654 (also in German)
(Also it's not a constutional right (Verfassungsrecht), since it wasn't the BVerfG that ruled in the first case (they tried to get them to rule, but no response was given), but a civil case ruled in the first instance by the BGH, after the local courts told Axel Springer to get bent)
(Edited: Added more context)
ad blockers “infringe copyright by altering HTML elements on their sites”,
LOL that's like saying you're infringing copyright if you rip a page out of a book or magazine, or scribble some notes in it.
More like putting a post-it on the ads in magazines. You are not altering anything for the next person, or even for yourself after reloading a page.
Ah nice, thanks for the update and correction! Hope Axel Springer will get shafted for good. Nothing of value comes from their publications.
Agreed. Even though I dislike Eyeo's practices as well (letting the ad companies pay for whitelisting their ads), it's a better outcome than outright banning ad blockers (or if Axel Springer had gotten their ways, "light" web-browsing via reader modes would have been turned illegal as well)
It could also go the other way and someone could sue Google or other companies. Web browsers and ad blockers run on the client not the server, generally with the authorisation of the owner of said client system. It is a technical measure to prevent unauthorised code (i.e. unwanted ads) from running on the system, imposed by the owner of the system. Anti ad blocker tech is really an attempt to run software on someone's computer by circumventing measures the owner of said computer has deployed to prevent that software from running, and has not authorised it to run. That sounds very similar to the definition of computer fraud / abuse / unauthorised access to a computer system / illegal hacking in many jurisdictions.
Then google could be sued everutime it distributes malware.