[zazazache]

While ads suck and I think this is a shitty move by YouTube, I I find it hard to argue against a company that runs on ads not having a legitimate interest in making sure that they are being able to display them on their own website.

I think you could even make a good argument that YouTube MUST take appropriate measures to ensure that they display ads that have been paid for. To count impressions so they are able to bill their clients they need to do more or less the same things required to detect ad blocking.

[sertbdfgbnfgsd]

If we're going to make law that they must not under-count, lets also make law that they must not over-count.

In fact, given that their interest is in higher count, the argument that "they must count correctly to avoid under-counting" doesn't make any sense.

[rollcat]

I have the exact opposite view. We need a law that guarantees end users the right to study and adapt software to fit their personal needs, especially in situations where vendors disregard accessibility (see the June 2023 Reddit API shitstorm and r/blind[1]).

Ads are often loud and obnoxious. An ad blocker that turns the volume down (rather than blocking an ad entirely) could be seen as a means of improving accessibility.

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/Blind/comments/13zr8h2/reddits_rece...

[Larrikin]

If I use Ad Nauseam, Google gets to deliver the ad on their website, the ad buyer gets the click so their marketing department can show how successful their campaign is, and I get to control what is displayed on MY computer with the side benefit of poisoning the data profile that attempts to track me around the entire internet regardless of whether I am paying for an ad free experience or not. Seems like a win for everyone.