Google reveals the next step in its war on ad blockers: slower extension updates

[AlphaX]

The big picture: In what's become a cat-and-mouse game between YouTube and ad blocker developers, Google appears to be making its boldest attack yet. A new policy featured in the Manifest V3 extension platform could destroy ad blockers on YouTube for good, at least on Chrome.

To dissuade users from using ad blockers on YouTube, Google began by pausing videos with a nag to turn off ad blocking. Then, it added an intentional delay when loading videos if a blocker was detected. It was somewhat effective, as developers reported a sharp increase in uninstalls. Now, Google is taking its war directly to those designing Chrome extensions.

Google's Manifest V2 extension platform allows developers to update their extensions very quickly. However, when Manifest V3 becomes mandatory in June 2024, there will be new restrictions that could drastically slow down the rate at which developers can update extensions.

Future extension updates must pass a complete review process before getting approved and sent to users. Ad blockers rely on swift updates to counter updates to YouTube's ad delivery system. The new review process should slow the rollout of updates, giving YouTube time to adjust its algorithms to make ad-blocking attempts less effective.

Engadget recently interviewed developers for some of Chrome's most popular ad-blocking extensions. Krzysztof Modras, director of engineering for the Ghostery extension, stated that Google is "adapting its methods more frequently than ever before." Due to the frequency of changes to YouTube's ad delivery system, developers must change their software's block lists at least daily, sometimes more.

In a FAQ, another popular ad-blocking extension, uBlock Origin, talked about YouTube's war on ad blockers. The statement reads: "YouTube changes their detection scripts regularly, which means there might be times that you encounter their message. It should only happen in brief periods of time after they change scripts and before we updated [sic] our filters."

Manifest V3's new review policy means these filters may take much longer to be updated. Google could intentionally slow down the review process for the extensions, allowing YouTube to stay a step ahead of them.

Users who use ad blockers for everyday YouTube sessions could be in a rough spot once Manifest V3 kicks in next year. Those looking for an ad-blocking "safe haven" may have to look towards other browsers. Mozilla has ensured users that Firefox will not require Manifest V3. However, Google is betting many users will either put up with ads or pay the $13.99 monthly fee for YouTube Premium instead.

Another possible alternative is to use ad blockers that work at the OS level. AdGuard eliminates YouTube ads and was only affected by YouTube's recent changes for a very brief time. You have to pay for the premium version to unlock YouTube ad blocking, but it costs less than $30 per year versus $14 per month. It also has a lifetime license for $80.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101039-google-reveals-next-step-war-adblockers-slower-extension.html

 

[yRaz]

Does google want to lose it's chrome monopoly by giving all users a worse experience because some users use ad blockers? Many people switched to chrome because it was objectively the best browser at the time. Frankly, I haven't used Chrome going on 5 years now and I'm one of those weirdo fringe Linux users. Imagine what gimping the user experience in other aspects of your browser would do to fight one problem.

I see a lot of people saying that if people don't watch ads then they aren't paying for the service but that's only part of the story. Many people who use ad blockers have no interest in what the ads are trying to sell ANYWAY. Google is using it's ban on ad blockers as a way to scam advertisers out of revinue. Yes, ad viewership will go up but the amount of sales-per-ad will go down.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I love that Google's solution to this problem, rather then improve the viewing experience, is to completely stomp on their core product. Making it a pain to update chrome extensions is going to piss off a LOT of people, and drive them to develop for other platforms instead.

This is the kind of thing that becomes the first domino in the fall of an empire.

Does google want to lose it's chrome monopoly by giving all users a worse experience because some users use ad blockers? Many people switched to chrome because it was objectively the best browser at the time. Frankly, I haven't used Chrome going on 5 years now and I'm one of those weirdo fringe Linux users. Imagine what gimping the user experience in other aspects of your browser would do to fight one problem.

I see a lot of people saying that if people don't watch ads then they aren't paying for the service but that's only part of the story. Many people who use ad blockers have no interest in what the ads are trying to sell ANYWAY. Google is using it's ban on ad blockers as a way to scam advertisers out of revinue. Yes, ad viewership will go up but the amount of sales-per-ad will go down.

I use an adblocker because ad servers, espeically googles, are the primary vecors for scamware, scareware, ransomware, and other trash. If they cannot secure their service, I am morally compelled to block them.

Let's not forget that youtube is a trash fire. DMCA requests are handed out like candy, any refutes have to go through twitter or facebook LMAO. Creators get demonetized at random, censored, and abused by bad actors constantly. Why would I want to support that? Maybe if google wasnt such a detestable company I'd be willing to sub to premium, but knowing the majority of content creators I watch would not benefit, I have no reason to do so. Google has made te4ns of thousands off of my personal data, I am not handing them more money.

 

[Uncle Al]

They will eventually lose and in the meantime, pill off every user out there. Perhaps one of our Billionare's will decide to launch their own web site and lure all the posters to their site. All they have to do is follow the old Youtube standards and everyone will be flocking to them ....

 

[kamisama]

Ditch everything google. They won't back off unless they learn the lesson they desperately need.

 

[axiomatic13]

This issue is purely some Exec at Google's hill to die on. Hopefully, they fire him/her after they die on this hill. This move has already gotten me to dump Chrome and Gmail. I now use Firefox and Proton Mail... and a PiHole.

 

[Nobina]

I would rather avoid YouTube than be bombarded with ads.

 

[p51d007]

I haven't used chrome in years. My primary browser is brave, which is obviously built on chromium. But I also use an ad blocker on certain sites that continues (for now) to stop the garbage ads on youtube.

 

[Thatsdisgusting]

Why so negative though, ppl? It's about time monopoly would throw itself over, all we have to do is take popcorn of your choice, lean back, enjoy the show!

 

[wiyosaya]

Google must think that everyone uses Chrome to watch YouTube. I love it when corporate hubris works against the corporation.

So far, I've seen no instances of Google barfing at my use of uBlock Origin in Waterfox on YouTube.
Google.

 

[wujj123456]

Yes, ad viewership will go up but the amount of sales-per-ad will go down.

Unfortunately, brand recognition and recall rate are major metrics too, not just for the eventual conversion of sales. They are also betting on conversion still happening because of their spying to make ads "relevant". Ironically, the spying is why I never log in unless I have to and do that with private mode. (Pretty sure they can still track me, but not going to make it as trivial and reliable as handing them my account handle.)

I've never switched away from Firefox, but for work where some pages only work with Chrome, Chromium and Vivaldi served me well. Almost all other alternatives (except Edge) have better privacy than Chrome, so nothing to lose if Google pisses off their users, so long as some of them are wise enough to switch. Google has pretty much lost ability of launching new products due to their reputation. Now they are digging into the mature services and perhaps their own grave.

 

[noel24]

I never switched from Firefox, and maybe because of that I have no idea what You all are talking about... Well, to be honest, I've noticed some lag in YT movie caching some time ago, now mostly gone. Maybe It's time to change Your browser? Monopolies are bad for You anyway.

 

[BuckarooBonzaii]

As I said before watch out Google, Anonymous may be watching you.

 

[brucek]

What great news for other browser vendors.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Ahh yes the cracking a nut with a sledgehammer
Google has nearly automated most things to AI - reviewing play store , YT videos , maybe extensions - so even more trusting the AI

Yeah this will go real sweet

I have no delays on ad free YT at moment - but sure as hell I'm off Chrome it this happens

Would be funny if because of this another search engine rises to the top - and there goes google number one earner

As people have stated $2or $3 a month and a 30 second advert max at beginning ( or 2 15 seconds ) is probably tolerable

 

[VariableSpike]

Google is throwing a hail mary because companies are spending less on ads and because the company's entire ideology seems to be effectively ad revenue through one method or another, it seems they are going all in on trying to make it work, which is a bit of a problem as even those who aren't that tech savvy block ads, and people won't care thatvthey have to leave chrome if it gets too frustrating, internet explorer met its fate, and chrome can too (especially as all the "different" browsers including edge are chromium based, and no matter the focus, they will have manifest v3 forced on them no matter what), leaving just firefox, where the only problem is Mozilla's historical inability to properly carve its own path and in many cases just following what Chrome does, the end result of this whole saga is going to be very interesting

 

[toooooot]

"However, Google is betting many users will either put up with ads or pay the $13.99 monthly fee"
Pay for what? Give more for the content you did not spend a second creating.
It is just now people realizing Google is the greediest of them.
There is not enough to grant 14.99 a month. And the ads
are so annoying and frequent now, that it is much better to invest your time elsewhere
rather than allowing your brain to rot watching ads.

 

[toooooot]

Google is throwing a hail mary because companies are spending less on ads and because the company's entire ideology seems to be effectively ad revenue through one method or another, it seems they are going all in on trying to make it work, which is a bit of a problem as even those who aren't that tech savvy block ads, and people won't care thatvthey have to leave chrome if it gets too frustrating, internet explorer met its fate, and chrome can too (especially as all the "different" browsers including edge are chromium based, and no matter the focus, they will have manifest v3 forced on them no matter what), leaving just firefox, where the only problem is Mozilla's historical inability to properly carve its own path and in many cases just following what Chrome does, the end result of this whole saga is going to be very interesting

I think this is the time many people begin to realize how shitty is the future where all browsers are of the same origin, it could mean pretty bad things. They can make truly unskipable ads that work on all websites, pause when users close the browser, keep playing when they reopen them. I think Google is seriously considers their new philosophy which sums up in be evil.

 

[Eldritch]

If you are using a tech site and still not using Firefox then maybe you are doing something wrong.

 

[RudyBob]

I love ad blockers

 

[internetleechers]

Does google want to lose it's chrome monopoly by giving all users a worse experience because some users use ad blockers? Many people switched to chrome because it was objectively the best browser at the time. Frankly, I haven't used Chrome going on 5 years now and I'm one of those weirdo fringe Linux users. Imagine what gimping the user experience in other aspects of your browser would do to fight one problem.

I see a lot of people saying that if people don't watch ads then they aren't paying for the service but that's only part of the story. Many people who use ad blockers have no interest in what the ads are trying to sell ANYWAY. Google is using it's ban on ad blockers as a way to scam advertisers out of revinue. Yes, ad viewership will go up but the amount of sales-per-ad will go down.

There are only few percentage that whine on internet, most of people will find their alternative... the premium since they can't live with ads and there is too much hassle to keep changing Ads blocker

This lesson already proof itself during Netflix password sharing crack down, despite internet whine their subscribers rise and also stock price rise.

From what I see in my office PCs, non geek will keep using Chrome... No matter what. It's like holy grail for most people. Some people they don't even know what is Edge and keep asking me when I use Edge or other in front of them when supporting.

So I can say Google will have their way in the end.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Speaking of blocking ads, Adblocker it self has a crappy pop-up that keeps coming up for me and asking about subscribing or purchasing or some crap. So, I removed Adblocker because it has it's own ad.

 

[internetleechers]

"However, Google is betting many users will either put up with ads or pay the $13.99 monthly fee"
Pay for what? Give more for the content you did not spend a second creating.
It is just now people realizing Google is the greediest of them.
There is not enough to grant 14.99 a month. And the ads
are so annoying and frequent now, that it is much better to invest your time elsewhere
rather than allowing your brain to rot watching ads.

They paid for someone who creating it, the content creator. If YouTube not giving any commission, will there be any good content? Nowadays a lot of series and animes use YouTube to stream their contents.

Your statement are wrong, the most greediest is the one who want everything for free (the ads blocker user). At least Google still spending somethings and paid for content creators hard effort. I don't say that they are not greedy but not the most.

Google should at least introduce lower tier and cut off YouTube music around $5.99-6.99 and that should be fair, or even lower with 720p only for $2.99-3.99 and after this people who still using ads blocker should be ashame of themselves since they can paid monthly for ads blocking service but not for people hardworking at YouTube.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

There are only few percentage that whine on internet, most of people will find their alternative... the premium since they can't live with ads and there is too much hassle to keep changing Ads blocker

This lesson already proof itself during Netflix password sharing crack down, despite internet whine their subscribers rise and also stock price rise.

From what I see in my office PCs, non geek will keep using Chrome... No matter what. It's like holy grail for most people. Some people they don't even know what is Edge and keep asking me when I use Edge or other in front of them when supporting.

So I can say Google will have their way in the end.

The exact same thing could be said of internet explorer in the 2000s. Chrome was but a geek project, a few % of the market.

We all know how that went.

If chrome screws up its services enough, people WILL leave. It has happened before, it will happen again. No service is inevitable.

If you are using a tech site and still not using Firefox then maybe you are doing something wrong.

I'll use firefox when it's bugs are fixed (which is never) and they start actually listening to users instead of playing controlled opposition (also never happening) and they fix the privacy issues (you bet that aint happening).

To this day, firefox has occasional hard locks and crashes for no apparent reason, whereas chrome does not. And firefox REALLY struggles with the whole improting/exporting bookmarks when you have several hundred of them spread through multiple folders.

I have more faith in brave or vivaldi hard forking the chromium project and making their own codebase over firefox managing to catch up to the 21st century.

"However, Google is betting many users will either put up with ads or pay the $13.99 monthly fee"
Pay for what? Give more for the content you did not spend a second creating.
It is just now people realizing Google is the greediest of them.
There is not enough to grant 14.99 a month. And the ads
are so annoying and frequent now, that it is much better to invest your time elsewhere
rather than allowing your brain to rot watching ads.

If google dropped the censorship, dropped the demonitization,a nd gave creators actual tools to fight false DMCAs and copyright takedowns, it would be worth $15 a month, especially given how much most of us will use it VS amazon prime, or netflix.

 

[internetleechers]

The exact same thing could be said of internet explorer in the 2000s. Chrome was but a geek project, a few % of the market.

We all know how that went.

If chrome screws up its services enough, people WILL leave. It has happened before, it will happen again. No service is inevitable.

I'll use firefox when it's bugs are fixed (which is never) and they start actually listening to users instead of playing controlled opposition (also never happening) and they fix the privacy issues (you bet that aint happening).

To this day, firefox has occasional hard locks and crashes for no apparent reason, whereas chrome does not. And firefox REALLY struggles with the whole improting/exporting bookmarks when you have several hundred of them spread through multiple folders.

I have more faith in brave or vivaldi hard forking the chromium project and making their own codebase over firefox managing to catch up to the 21st century.

If google dropped the censorship, dropped the demonitization,a nd gave creators actual tools to fight false DMCAs and copyright takedowns, it would be worth $15 a month, especially given how much most of us will use it VS amazon prime, or netflix.

Maybe, but their situation are not the same. At that time it's whole user experience change and also IE is stagnant when Chrome rising. but this time Chrome is quite active and only affect group of people.

I can say that when Chrome rising, it's better in everyway. But this time, some people won't feel any different to switch. Like me, who never install any blocker and won't feel any different since their YouTube script do nothing to me.

BTW, I use all of them (browser) anyway. Edge > Opera > Firefox > Chrome, after Edge use Chromium.