• admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As I understand it, detecting an adblocker is a form of fingerprinting. Fingerprinting like this is a privacy violation unless there is first a consent process.

    The outcome of this will be that consent for the detecting will be added to the TOS or as a modal and failing to consent will give up access to the service. It won’t change Youtube’s behavior, I don’t think. But it could result in users being able to opt out of the anti-adblock… just that it also might be opting out of all of YouTube when they do it.

    • Ensign Rick@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m all for this protection but for the sake of argument isn’t use of the service consent to begin with? Or is that the American argument around these types of regulation?

      I’m a pihole, vpn, adblock and invidious user ftr… 😂

      • TheGreatFox@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s how the corporate-written laws in the USA handle it most likely. The EU actually has some amount of consumer protection. Burying it in a 100 page terms of service document doesn’t count as consent either.

      • 0xD@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It depends on the context, but generally you require explicit permission for data-related stuff which means something like a checkbox or a signature.