Search the Community

Adblock: Google did not slow down and lag YouTube performance with ad blocker on by Sayan Sen Back in November, the internet was abuzz with conspiracy theories of Google purposely slowing down YouTube on Mozilla Firefox while its own browser, Chrome, would work fine. However, those rumors were shot down soon after as Google explained that it was not just Firefox that was the subject of "suboptimal viewing" experience and that it was happening irrespective of the browser. Google put the blame on "installed ad blockers." Fast forward two months, now in January we just had another similar incident with several user reports online of YouTube being slow with adblockers. As is usually the case in these instances, most netizens of course were quick to once again point the finger at Google. The issue was first brought to attention by Reddit users and the thread blew up with many more chiming in to say they were experiencing a similar thing. As it turns out, the bug was not YouTube or Google and was in fact a problem with Adblock and Adblock Plus' recent update Version 5.17.0. Hence if you were using something else like uBlock Origin (like me), you probably did not notice any slowdown. Adblock Plus developers noted the issue as performance regression on its GitLab repo. It wrote: Recently, ABP released version 3.22 which upgraded the bundled extension engine version to 1.1.1. AdBlock released version 5.17.0 which also updated the extension engine to version 1.1.1. We've had several reports of slow response time since the update. It appears to be an issue in the extension engine since ABP, AdBlock, and the EWE test extension all seem to experience a similar issue with the 1.1.1 version of the extension engine. The issue has now been fixed with the latest eyeo's Web Extension Ad Blocking Toolkit (EWE) version 1.1.2, where the breaking change has been reverted. Name: @eyeo/webext-ad-filtering-solution New version: 1.1.2 Reverted "Content filters are now updated via the history.pushState() event, when single page apps navigate using the browser's history API (EE-14, EE-90)". Breaking changes: None. Other changes: Reverted performance regression. Hence, if you are one of those users who is experiencing issues with Adblock and Adblock Plus, you should update your extension. It is also advised not to run multiple content filters or adblockers on your browser if you are facing performance issues. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!

Windows Phone may allow you to get around the YouTube ad blocker via Chrome (sort of) by John Callaham Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system hasn't been supported for years. However, an interesting trick involving Microsoft's mobile OS could help people view videos on YouTube without ads. Back in August, we reported that Google was getting more aggressive with people who used adblockers to view videos on YouTube's website. In addition to a warning box letting people know they had to either watch ads on the site or pay for a YouTube Premium subscription, they also put in a countdown timer in the top right corner of the box, which showed how much time was left before an ad starts running on the site. Well, the X (formerly Twitter) user known as "endermanch" posted up a note a few days ago (via Windows Central) that offers a possible solution for getting around the adblocker warning on YouTube's site. It involves downloading a user agent switcher extension for Chrome. There are a number of third-party switchers, and even Google has published one in the Chrome store. So, ad blockers violate YouTube ToS? Good, because user agent spoofers don't. Change your user agent to Windows Phone to disable ads.https://t.co/mDOROwyNkT pic.twitter.com/q0kYArnOk6 — Enderman (@endermanch) October 20, 2023 Once you download and install the extension, people can then switch the user agent on Chrome to Windows Phone. Basically, it tells the YouTube site, when you browse your way to it, that your web browser is on Windows Phone. For some unknown reason, the YouTube site has put in an exception for browsing videos on Windows Phone and thus it should not show that adblocker warning. It's likely that Google felt that since Windows Phone is pretty much a dead OS, it didn't need to configure the YouTube ad blocker to look for it. Of course, now that this user agent extension trick is out in the wild, Google may close this loophole pretty quickly. Having said that, it's still interesting that Windows Phone still has its uses years after its shutdown.

YouTube gets more aggressive in pushing adblock warnings with countdown timer by Omer Dursun YouTube continues ramping up its efforts to push more users to its paid Premium subscription. The platform has begun testing a new anti-adblocker popup version aimed at non-paying (non-Premium) viewers. According to a new Reddit post, the updated warning includes a countdown timer in the top right corner, indicating how long the user has left to take action before the ad plays. Based on initial reports, the timer appears to run for 30-60 seconds. The rest of the warning box remains the same, explaining the benefits of YouTube Premium and providing the options to "Allow YouTube Ads" or "Try YouTube Premium." A screenshot of the new warning popup was shared on Reddit. Several users confirmed seeing the timed warning as well, indicating YouTube is currently testing this with a limited number of accounts. In June, YouTube limited viewers to three videos when an ad blocker was detected. It then allowed users to allow ads or try YouTube Premium, which gives users an ad-free experience for a monthly fee. The platform has been aggressively pushing users to its premium offering, which removes ads entirely. Earlier this year, YouTube launched a "1080p Premium" video quality with a higher bit rate. Last week, this video option became available for desktop. The timed warning represents YouTube's latest tactic to wear down non-paying adblocker users. While workarounds like VPNs and some browsers like Brave exist, these are temporary fixes. YouTube likely has measures planned to counter such methods. Meanwhile, many users resist Premium due to the service's rising costs. A recent price increase brought the individual monthly fee to $13.99 in the US. But prices remain lower in markets like India. The backlash over YouTube's intrusive promotions continues to grow. But the Google-owned company shows no signs of backing off the strategy. The timed warning box is likely the next phase in YouTube's ongoing efforts to push more ad blocker users into paid subscriptions.

YouTube limits viewers to three videos if an adblocker is detected by Paul Hill Do you remember several years ago when it became trendy for websites to detect adblockers and make you disable them? Well, it looks like that’s coming to YouTube. According to Redditor Reddit_n_Me, YouTube now issues a popup to people using an adblocker on YouTube that informs them they can only watch three videos while blocking ads. It then gives you the option to allow ads or try YouTube Premium, which gives you an ad-free experience for a monthly fee. Neowin already reported on the fact that YouTube was trialling a popup to stop adblockers but it seems that the latest iteration of the blocker is more lenient and allow you to watch three videos before you're made to turn off the adblocker. In the popup shown to users, it reads: It looks like you may be using an ad blocker. Video playback will be blocked unless YouTube is allowlisted or the ad blocker is disabled. Ads allow YouTube to stay free for billions of users worldwide. You can go ad-free with YouTube Premium, and creators still get paid from your subscription. According to the Reddit user, he was using Adblock with Chrome when the notification popped up. It’s not clear whether all adblocking software will cause the popup to trigger or just some of them. The popup has been confirmed by YouTube to BleepingComputers. The company said that it was running a small experiment globally that urges YouTubers to allow ads or try YouTube Premium - if you haven’t seen the popup but use an adblocker, it probably just means you’re not included in the trial. YouTube Premium is not exactly the cheapest option around, coming in at $11.99/£11.99/CAD $11.99/AU $14.99 per month. YouTube Premium is also not available everywhere in the world so some people would be forced into watching ads. We’ll have to wait and see if the notification becomes a permanent fixture but for now, it’s limited to just a select group of users. Let us know in the comments if you have seen this popup and which browsers and adblocker combo you use. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support! Source and Image: Reddit_n_Me (Reddit) via BleepingComputer

YouTube confirms that it is testing out blocking ad blockers on the site by Steve Bennett Even though many websites on the internet are available for free, a large proportion of their income comes from advertisements, especially on YouTube where a lot of content creators earn income from ads within their videos. There are ad blockers out there however which prevent these adverts from displaying, denying the sites of income. Earlier this week, reports were posted to Reddit that, when attempting to play videos on YouTube a prompt was displayed that prevented playback until ad-blocking software was disabled. This was later confirmed by a YouTube employee on the YouTube subreddit. While it may be fairly clear why YouTube has decided to start testing this feature with a view to implementing it in the future, given that a large portion of income for not just YouTube but creators as well comes from the ads. However, many users in the same thread have expressed frustration at YouTube with their apparent increase in ad placement within videos on the site. Of course, the same prompt encourages users to try YouTube Premium, which includes the removal of adverts within videos, and YouTube is wanting to drive subscriptions to the platform, hoping to capture users who wish to continue not seeing adverts on the site. Even though YouTube has looked into separate tiers of Premium to just block ads with no other perks, this has not come to light and only the main tier continues to exist in individual and family plans. Source: 9to5Google

FBI, NSA, and CIA use ad blockers due to fear of targeted ads by Usama Jawad While some companies are striving to make ads more transparent so that users can make more informed decisions about whether they should click on an ad or not, there is still considerable threat from malicious advertisements that are used to harvest information or leverage your device as a reconnaissance tool to perform other undesirable activities. It turns out that federal U.S. intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) fear online advertising as much as the next guy, and use ad blockers to mitigate this potential threat. According to a letter addressed to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), penned by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, and obtained by Motherboard, the Intelligence Community (IC) deploys ad blockers on a wide scale. For those unaware, the IC consists of multiple entities including FBI, NSA, CIA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), and more. The letter also contains a quote from the IC's Chief Information Officer as follows: The IC has considered all recommendations from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Security Agency and has implemented enterprise-wide policy and technology controls consistent with government recommendations and industry best practices for ad-blocking. The IC has implemented network-based ad- blocking technologies and uses information from several layers, including Domain Name System information, to block unwanted and malicious advertising content. While the information isn't entirely surprising given that we're talking about federal intelligence agencies, it's still interesting to get further confirmation of the threat of malicious advertising. Wyden has outlined how ad providers utilize online activity to serve targeted ads. The senator has explained that a recent Senate investigation also revealed that this data is exported to "high-risk" markets such as China and Russia, who can then use it for malicious purposes. Both the NSA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have previously provided guidance encouraging the use of ad blockers. That said, federal agencies are not currently mandated to follow this guidance. Wyden is proposing that the OMB enforces the use of ad blockers across all federal intelligence agencies. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!

This simple URL trick can help you block YouTube ads and bypass paywalls by Anmol Mehrotra If you are one of those people who hate paywalls and YouTube ads then you no longer need to get third-party extensions, ad blockers, or try any other complicated methods. A Reddit user (via The Next Web) by the username "u/unicorn4sale" has found a simple trick that will allow users to block ads on YouTube and even bypass paywalls. All you need to do is put a period after ".com' and it will block ads automatically. So if you are visiting "www.youtube.com/xyz, " you will need to change it to "www.youtube.com./xyz." This will block the ads on YouTube and will let you watch videos without any advertisements. The trick also works on multiple websites that hide their content behind a paywall. The reason why this works has to do with the hostname. When you put a period in the URL, it results in no hostname match. When this happens, the main content of the website is loaded but additional features like ads and cookies break and are not loaded. The loophole can be fixed by websites as they can normalize the hostname by using "a different domain to serve ads/media with a whitelist that doesn’t contain the extra dot.” The loophole works on desktop and mobile but mobile users will have to load the desktop version of the site. Unfortunately, there is no way to skip ads or paywalls on mobile apps. Please do keep in mind that creators pay for their expenses using ad revenues so before you go on an ad-free YouTube spree, consider supporting your favourite creators. Alternatively, you can also purchase YouTube Premium membership to get an ad-free experience. The trick works on several websites at the time of the writing but it has a simple fix so there is only a matter of time before websites and even YouTube patch the loophole.

Google explains its new extensions policy that has drawn the ire of ad blockers by Muhammad Jarir Kanji Google has recently come under fire for a new change to the way the Web Request API works in Chrome. This API is used by many extensions, and the changes could affect the ability of ad blockers to function properly. Google is charging ahead despite the controversy, however, and took to its security blog to explain why it thinks the changes are necessary for the protection of users, and to also quell concerns about the change potentially neutering ad blockers in Chrome. The company explains that the explosive growth in the popularity of extensions has resulted in the Chrome team having to take drastic measures to reduce their abuse by nefarious actors. This comprised of not only various changes to how extensions are reviewed, but Google has also increased the number of reviewers by 400% in the last year, alongside a 300% increase in the size of the teams that work on extension abuse. This has already resulted in the rate of malicious extension installations going down by 89% since 2018, but Google feels it needs to do more. Its solution has been to change how APIs relating to extensions work. Previously, extensions such as ad blockers would be able to request all information about a network request - which would include possibly sensitive information - from the browser in order to perform their specific functions. With the change, Google will be replacing the Web Request API with the Declarative Net Request API, which allows extension makers to have granular control over exactly the information they need from the browser, without receiving information that is sensitive or otherwise irrelevant to their function. The blog uses the following simple schematic to explain the difference: Google concludes the post by admitting the change has been controversial, especially with regard to ad blockers, but reiterates that the change would not necessarily neuter ad blockers. Developers would simply need to change how their extensions work using the new API in order to provide the same functionality. Other Chromium-based browsers like Opera and Vivaldi have declared that they will continue to support the old API for extensions, despite Google's changes. For Chrome users, the only exception to the new rules, once they're implemented, would be to switch to the enterprise version of Chrome, which will continue to support the old API.

Google's Chrome browser will block all ads on websites running 'abusive' ads by Muhammad Jarir Kanji In a new blog post outlining measures the company is taking to make the web a more pleasant place, Google today announced a major change to how its Chrome browser will interface with ads. Following up on its promise from last year, the company is showing its serious about making ads better. The post outlines Google's intentions to block all ads on any website that it finds to be 'abusive' in the manner in which ads it serves ads to visitors. The company had already started to block ads it believed were 'intrusive' in February of this year, but it seems its current protections were not doing enough, with more than half of what it considers abusive experiences passing through the filters. As a result, the search giant is upping the ante by blocking all ads on offending sites. Some examples of what Google considers misleading or abusive experiences are ads that try to trick the user by masquerading as a system warning, ads which do not close even after you press the 'close' button and ads used by scammers and phishers to steal personal information. In general, Google expects all sites to abide by the Better Ads Standards prescribed by the Coalition for Better Ads. Webmasters can check if their site contains any ads which would trigger Google's filters by going to the Abusive Experience Report in their Google Search Console before the changes are implemented in December, with the release of Chrome 71. Experiences flagged as abusive will be given a 30-day period for removal, after which ads on the site will be blocked. The company also noted that if, for some reason, a user wanted to see purportedly abusive ads without Google's filtering, they could manually turn off the protections in the browser settings. As an online publication, Neowin too relies on ads for operating costs and, if you use an ad blocker, we'd appreciate being whitelisted. In addition, we have an ad-free subscription for $28 a year, which is another way to show support!

The overall winner in Firefox is simply the quickest, and that was µBlock origin. µ AdBlock is a fair choice if you want an easy to use but fast blocker, the rest are almost identical so it’s down to personal preference and the options available as to which one you use. The winner in Chrome is a closer call when you consider the results from all three tests. But as it got a couple of firsts and a second, we would say µBlock Origin is the definite winner, it truly is fast and efficient as the author claims. Both Ghostery and Adguard are still excellent choices and are viable alternatives to µBlock Origin providing good performance in all 3 categories. If you disable acceptable ads, Adblock Plus goes from being dead last to a blocker that performs similar to the rest. It’s worth pointing out AdBlock and it’s forked versions all suffer with higher CPU and memory usage, for that reason we would recommend something else if you have a low end system. Read More: https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-best-performance/view-all/ µBlock Origin (in Firefox) for the win!

Ad Muncher AnnouncementAfter being sold as shareware for 15 years, Ad Muncher is now free! http://www.murrayhurps.com/blog/ad-muncher-announcement

I hate and love adblocker at the same time. Love reason: Because it gets rid of all the messy ads on the web page. Hate reason: Because if you own your own site, it decreases your chance to earn money by A LOT. Damn, I wish the internet would remove adblocker.

Hey! I've started using some TPLs in IE10, and I really like reading Neowin without those annoying text ads :p I'd install ad blockers on all of my browsers, but (being a web developer myself) I don't entirely feel comfortable with the idea of taking away the major source of income for the sites that I use for free. I understand that my ad views represent a miniscule part of Neowin's (or any sites) overall income, but still, it's the whole 'what if everybody did that?' idea that's got me worried. what do you guys think? do you use an adblocker, do you think it's ethical, and why? Thanks ;)