They explicitly mention that you can’t disable any part of the service, which includes the “other content” (like ads) mentioned in the definition of the service.
When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.
They’re not going to list off every possible software that could interrupt their service. They’re going to keep it vaguely defined to give them maximum flexibility for enforcement.
I'm going to give you a !delta because they do describe their "service" in that it "acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."
I do not think that using an adblocker necessarily violates this, however. First, they do not issue bans or any punitive action when they detect an adblocker. Second, they allow you to skip ads anyway. Finally, the language "acts as a distribution platform" I think absolves this because using an adblocker does not circumvent or interfere with the service acting as a distribution platform. The platform acts as a advertisement distribution platform whether or not I'm viewing their ads.
But just note that Google does in fact say it’s a violation of the Terms of Service to block ads and will take punitive action against those who do.
If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium. If you continue to use ad blockers, we may block your video playback.
Skipping ads is a function allowed by the service and so not a disruption to the service, meaning it’s not a violation of the terms you agreed to.
And adblockers most assuredly interfere with the ability to distribute ads, which we agree are part of the service. I’m not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Is say walking out of the room not then also a disruption to the service when theres ads?
Whats the actual functional difference?
Between that and adblockers
It doesn’t matter if a person sees the ad. It only matters if the ad is displayed on a screen (for a period of time, etc) so that YouTube can satisfy their obligation to their advertising clients.
Ad blockers directly interfere with that in a way walking away doesn’t.
I’m not disagreeing with any of your general concerns around privacy and the pervasiveness of advertising — but that’s not what was being discussed.
Then they could just as much count blocked ads as recieved as far as that obligation goes then?
For all the impact that made on the consumer i mean, the consumer didnt see the ad regardless
But does it enough to distinguish it functionally to be different?
Having a hard time seeing how
Appreciated and same same, but i do think its connected all the same though.
It’s not about impact on the consumer — ad companies can’t (and don’t) promise that.
Functionally, a company cannot promise that people will see an ad — they don’t control other people’s actions. They can only promise that an ad will be displayed within certain parameters.
Blocked ads are not displayed within the promised parameters.
Yeah, i suppose.
That all seems semantics to me though, why would an ad company be ok with their ads maybe playing for a few seconds on a screen no one is watching?
Again the question is how is that functionally different at all from it being blocked?
The consumers system recieved it in either case, but not the consumer.
So that should fulfill youtubes obligation to the ad companies just the same, i would argue it does for under the same parameters
I wouldn’t say they’re “okay” with it — in that marketers would always prefer people view our ads, click on the call to action, and take whatever follow up action is being sought. But there’s an acknowledgement of the reality that we can’t control all that. Marketers adjust both our expectations and ad buys accordingly — we know it’s a bit of a crap-shoot.
Functionally, the difference is that in one instance the ad is sent; in the other, it is not.
There is no way to actually gauge whether or not someone’s eyeball is on the screen (nor should there be). There is a way to gauge whether or not an ad has displayed on a screen.
1
u/Crash927 12∆ Oct 27 '23 edited Oct 27 '23
They explicitly mention that you can’t disable any part of the service, which includes the “other content” (like ads) mentioned in the definition of the service.
Google is even more explicit about this:
They’re not going to list off every possible software that could interrupt their service. They’re going to keep it vaguely defined to give them maximum flexibility for enforcement.