Checks out tbh. Around 90% of the web's overall traffic is viewed from tablets and mobile devices. Having a good mobile/app experience is essential for user traffic - how many of us are on the web while in bed, on the toilet, eating breakfast, half-watching TV, on break at work, etc...?
Definitely. I'm much more likely to comment when I'm not prepared for 70% of the readers to interpret what I write the worst possible way on purpose lol.
It'll be a scale thing, though. For one, most instances have a human-manned review process. And for two, we have low enough users that communities don't homogenise into echo chambers as easily. This will change as any particular instance (or Lemmy's federated instances) gain more users.
It's feasible that there are other variables that have been missed, but essentially this works. The server asks us a question, and we answer it. We just skip the bit where we provide evidence.
It's like looking up the answers in the back of the textbook on a test. The only thing the server sees is the paper we're handing in, it has no idea if we cheated or not.
Boring technical explanation:
For a server (in this case, YouTube) to see what a client (your computer) is doing, it has to reach out and ask it. When a request is made, the two points will 'handshake' to confirm that they heard the request, then when they've done it. It looks something like this:
- Client to server: are you prepared?
- Server to client. Yes, I am prepared. (503 if failure)
- Acknowledge. Client requests [data].
- Request received.
- (Server processes request.)
- Server to client. Are you prepared for response?
- Yes, I am prepared.
- Acknowledge. Response sent.
- Response received. Close connection.
- Connection closed.
These steps can be repeated any number of times in response to a single user mouseclick, depending on what you're trying to do. A 'request timeout' error is what happens if client/server asks "are you prepared?" and it takes too long for the server/client to answer "yes, I am", so you hang up the phone.
For the server to treat clients differently at all, it needs to contact them for feedback. For adblocking, it has to ask your client if you're adblocking. Usually the server does this by sending the client a request to serve an ad - if your client never answers back to confirm it was loaded, then the server knows you blocked the ad. The devs can tell the server that if it doesn't get a certain answer, to enable the punishment effects. (They'll technically be sent anyway; they're just hidden/disabled by default if your client handshakes the ad.)
What these scripts do is lie to the server. The server asks the client if we received the ad, we ignore the script that checks whether the ad is loaded and instead directly change the answer to claim it has. Since all the server sees is the confirmation, it doesn't know the difference.
Already seen some screenshots from people trying to reddit in their mobile browser, despite being logged in. Their popup had the classic 'View in App', but the 'Continue in browser' was replaced with 'Take me outta here' or something to that effect, and would take them to the previous page in their browser.
I can appreciate this distinction on NSFW content without a logged in user, because of concerns with age verification. But it seems some users were part of a selected testing group to migrate users into the app almost completely.
Considering that Firefox browser can block ads on reddit (and that browser reddit still runs better than app reddit) there's definitely pressure for Reddit to drive users to their app with a stick. They certainly don't offer carrots.
By necessity, so that Reddit wouldn't have been obliged to intervene and close the community.
I considered the r/Piracy sub a 'gateway' - it didn't overtly provide pirated content, but it made the pirated content safer and more accessible for people who weren't already familiar with it, or updated us on news for platforms going down or changing hosts. It made piracy accessible.
Of course accessibility means bringing in low-effort users, lurkers, and those who make choices out of comfort/convenience over principle, but it still provided a service.
And while I'm at it, here's the filters to add to your uBlock Origin's MY FILTERS settings to block YT's blocker:
youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.openPopupConfig.supportedPopups.adBlockMessageViewModel, false)
youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.adBlocksFound, 0)
youtube.com##+js(set, ytplayer.config.args.raw_player_response.adPlacements, [])
youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.hasAllowedInstreamAd, true)
The more ad-riddled they make the platform to try and monetise users, the more they make adblocks necessary to even be usable.
I didn't use to both with adblockers. I didn't like ads, but they didn't affect me enough for me to go through any effort blocking them.
Now I use blockers everywhere, on every platform. Even for creators I like, because I know how little they actually make for ads - so how bout instead of watching 12 hours of ads so they can get 2c, I just send them a dollar or buy their merch every once in a while to not watch ads at all? Etc.
Ads could have had a place. There are ads that serve a purpose, that have minimal disruption but still give businesses a way to develop awareness for those who might want to use them.
Movie trailers (including when they stopped trailing movies and started leading them) are examples of 'acceptable ads' to me. When I purchase something from a store and they include a printed card from their sponsor. When sports teams have logos for being sponsored. A work van with the business logo parked while out on call. Etc.
But the internet's online ads? Email spam? Telemarketing? These are forms of advertising that are actively hostile, and they've become the default. So now a user that wants to be on the internet at all is best served by block all ads, including the ones that would've otherwise been reasonable.
Google will never make me feel guilty for blocking ads when they're already making their search engine unusable, too.
