Ublock Origin Legacy doesn't work on youtube. Topic is solved

[person45]

I installed UCyborg's version 1.16.6b1.
I clicked on "Update now" in the Filters list tab.
When I disable Ublock Origin Legacy and refresh, the warning message goes away, and the youtube video loads.

The regular version of Ublock Origin without any changes is working correctly with Firefox and Edge browsers on youtube.

[Massacre]

And my classic 1.16.4.30 works perfectly. Maybe you're missing some filters? Check those:

uo.png

[hujan86]

I installed UCyborg's version 1.16.6b1.

You mentioned you installed version 1.16.6b1 which is a pre-release version released last year. Have you tried the latest version instead (1.16.6.0)?

[Night Wing]

I am using uBlock Origin 1.16.6.0 in the linux distros of Mint, MX Linux, Debian and it works on YouTube blocking ads using Pale Moon. There is one caveat however. I am not logged into YouTube.

[person45]

There is one caveat however. I am not logged into YouTube.

Thank you for this detail. I logged off, and ublock legacy is working.

But now I've run into the 59 seconds problem.

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32086

Update: The 59-seconds problem has gone away. I tried the idea in the other thread to allow google.

[frostknight]

It is so ironic that these mega corporations refuse to acknowledge that some people use adblockers and don't want to disable them to due to the adblockers preventing some of their trackers

I just went on youtube and had zero issues with adblockers. I am using the latest tho. the non beta of cyborg's.

[Moonchild]

It is so ironic that these mega corporations refuse to acknowledge that some people use adblockers and don't want to disable them to due to the adblockers preventing some of their trackers

Remember, if you get something for free, YOU are the product.
i.e. don't be surprised if a service provider makes life harder for you if you're trying to not be the product and still using their service for free.

[suzyne]

Ads are annoying! But I don't understand the online fixation of blocking ads on YouTube.

I read comments on Reddit where it is common for people to state they simply can't/won't watch videos if ads are included, and by implication how dare Google/YouTube take steps to nullify the effectiveness of adblockers to hide or skip the ads.

Of course, Google makes a lot of money from advertising, but isn't it the channel owner who chooses whether they want to monetise their content by allowing Google to insert the ads on their videos?

When people want endless cool content for no cost without some form of advertising (which is often why it will be offered for free) I just don't get the logic of their entitlement.

[Moonchild]

I read comments on Reddit where it is common for people to state they simply can't/won't watch videos if ads are included,

I thinks that's fine. Just don't watch the videos then! Go elsewhere or just do without. That doesn't entitle one to get the cake and eat it too, though.

isn't it the channel owner who chooses whether they want to monetise their content by allowing Google to insert the ads on their videos?

I don't think youtube works like that anymore. Some ads are always inserted.

[Kris_88]

That doesn't entitle one to get the cake and eat it too, though.

Off-topic:
In general, it is very convenient.
First, you pay with your time, watching the ads imposed on you. Then you pay a second time when you buy the product, because the price of the product includes the price of the ads that the manufacturer ordered and forced you to watch.
Don't you think that paying twice is a bit wrong?
So I either watch the ad or buy the product. Either one or the other, but not both.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

So I either watch the ad or buy the product. Either one or the other, but not both.

You clearly don't understand advertising.

[Night Wing]

The problem as I see it are the "irrelevant ads" which do not pertain to the subject matter of the video. An example is below.

I spend a great deal of time searching for longboard surfing videos since I started longboard surfing when I was 15 and I am now 75 years old. That is a long stretch of 60 years. Below is a short surfing longboard video show casing Quintana Beach on the upper Texas coast where I do most of my surfing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3bhDHLJAZA

Before I could view the video, there was an ad for the Ozempic weight reducing drug. This drug has NOTHING to do with surfing. Would I be interested in viewing this irrelevant ad? The answer is "no" because I weigh, at the time of this posting, a MASSIVE.........wait for it.........134 pounds (60 kilograms).

Show me an ad for anything with respects to surfing such as surfboards, fins, wetsuits, board leashes, board socks, board bags, etc and I will watch the ad. It is simple as that.

Whoever at YouTube who is in charge of advertising or marketing, this person (or group of people) might be smart, but when it comes to common sense, he/she (or the group) has ZERO common sense.

One time, I was looking for a surfing video for a few longboads made in the new Thunderbolt Technologies (Red & Black construction). I did find the video, but there was a short ad before the video. The ad was for Thunderbolt Technology in Red construction.

I said to myself, someone at YouTube has common sense.

The ad was highly successful and many surfers wanted to know more about this new technology. The japanese company who made the short ad decided to make a video show casing this new technology. And the video, which is a little bit longer than the surfing video above is below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6kWgb0OGI4

I am not a power user in computers; but I do comprehend the logistics, engineering, materials, equipment, physics, math and innovation in making a board in the above video.

Give me a relevant ad pertaining to the video I am going to watch and I do not have a problem with ads. But if YouTube is going to push irrelevant ads, then YouTube is going to play "whack-a-mole" by going after ad blockers.

My CJ Nelson 9'3" Parallax single fin longboard is made in Thunderbolt (Red) construction and the video above is what drew me to their website for more information.

https://thunderboltsurf.com/

The surfer who designed my Parallax is CJ Nelson along with the expert shaper Ryan Engle. Cost for my Parallax alone, $1300 US dollars so the original short ad made some money for YouTube.

[Gemmaugr]

When it comes to ads on the internet, it's usually sadly all or nothing. Remember back when ad-blocking wasn't as widely and easily available (I think this was around the late 90's and through the 00's), and ads were eye-glaring bits of loud, shaking, monstrosities that either followed you scrolling around or were constant pop-ups? Now it's "just" every other minute on YT, or so I hear. I will always choose the latter option over the former.

[frostknight]

Remember, if you get something for free, YOU are the product.
i.e. don't be surprised if a service provider makes life harder for you if you're trying to not be the product and still using their service for free.

Yes, that's true for a lot of things. The exception being windows and linux. Windows costs money and YOU still are the product and linux is free and YOU aren't the product.

Irony it is.

[frostknight]

I thinks that's fine. Just don't watch the videos then! Go elsewhere or just do without. That doesn't entitle one to get the cake and eat it too, though.

Only thing is, its less about the ads and more about the nefarious functions behind the ads.

Duckduckgo does advertising too, but from my understanding their ads are static and don't do any tracking.

To be clear, ads are fine IF they don't have any nefarious code.

That's where I draw the line.

And given their attitude towards people not wanting to be surveiled, I feel it is entirely appropriate to screw with them and as you say have cake and eat it too.

[Moonchild]

To be clear, ads are fine IF they don't have any nefarious code.

This thread is about youtube ads. There's no nefarious code in them, as they are videos.

[frostknight]

This thread is about youtube ads. There's no nefarious code in them, as they are videos.

So they aren't malvertising with their ads?

If they do tracking through their ads, that would be nefarious code. You saying that doesn't happen?

[Moonchild]

the ads are videos...
you can't malvertise with a video. Any "tracking" present will solely be by the yt platform (if you can call gathering onsite metrics about viewership tracking which I think you can't)

[frostknight]

the ads are videos...
you can't malvertise with a video. Any "tracking" present will solely be by the yt platform (if you can call gathering onsite metrics about viewership tracking which I think you can't)

So they don't attach the trackers to the ads?

I am suspicious of ads because I know malvertising has happened before on ads elsewhere.

[person45]

I am suspicious of ads because I know malvertising has happened before on ads elsewhere.

I think it would be extremely hard to embed self-executing malware in the video file of the youtube ad.

Traditional attacks require someone to click on an ad banner.

"When users click on an ad, they are redirected through multiple URLs before reaching the ad landing page. If an attacker compromises any of these URLs, they can execute malicious code."

It seems it's easier to put malware in pictures.

https://therecycler.com/posts/attackers ... -websites/
"attackers hid the same malicious code in images on file hosting websites like archive.org ... Such techniques help attackers circumvent detection, as image files appear benign when downloaded from well-known websites,"

https://gizmodo.com/malware-images-viru ... 1849572516
"EXIF data attached to an image (those details around when the photo was taken and which camera was used) can be compromised to execute code."
"Computer security is never 100 percent guaranteed,"