Local news publishers, Karolian told Engadget, almost entirely depend on selling ads and subscriptions to readers who visit their websites to survive.
Then it’s time to change your business model. Ad driven journalism has shown it’s limits decades ago, this is just regurgitating what other press agencies write and adding some ads over it.
Was it even still around? I can think of a few times in the past few months where I’ve tried to find the cached link to a google result and failed. Most recently just two days ago, when a site I wanted to use was down for maintenance.
Did anyone really expect this part of the policy to stay? My understanding is that they only reinstated the nudity ban, the rest of the new allowances are still allowed.
I wasn’t even sure if that was the case from the statement, seemed like they revoked the option of cartoon imagery. I expected that may be due to the complications of unrealistic body image associated with suggested age, to be vague enough to avoid an argument in my replies
I don’t agree with that. Anything they can do can be circumvented as long as there’s people willing and able to do the work. And because YouTube is so ubiquitous I see that continuing.
They could certainly be more aggressive though. I think their pace is elaborate. Boil the frog slowly.
If they wanted an almost impossible skip they could bake ads directly into the video stream as its served to you. Facebook already has ads that are basically impossible to remove, and that’s without the advantage of serving video content.
YouTube employs a wide variety of techniques to circumvent ad blockers, such as embedding an ad in the video itself (so the ad blocker can’t distinguish between the two)
Though a low effort search on my part just now couldn’t corroborate that. But even if current adblocking software can’t handle it, real time commercial detection software exists and could, I assume, be applied here.
Oh, yeah. Hadn’t thought of that. Or maybe it’d just blank out the ad while it was playing and you’d just have to wait. Either way, annoying.
I got to thinking you could crowdsource it, like sponsorblock. But that’d probably only catch popular videos, and YouTube could just randomize what ads and when.
YouTube could make it impossible to skip, or at least impossible to entirely skip. If there hasn’t been enough time between you requesting the ad frames and the frames at the start of the video it could simply refuse to give you the new frames
There’s a lot of very motivated people trying g to stop adblockers on many platforms, I’ve never seen one that works without severely limiting the user experience.
And remember these are the most convenient and useful form of adblock. I don’t think there is anything a site could do to stop the user just throwing a black box over the ad and muting the page.
Ultimately, no security works when the attacker has absolute control over the hardware.
I think the ad black box is where it will end up. A lot of people would probably not see that as much better than having an ad at that point, though. They don’t even really need to make something impenetrable, they just need to keep breaking adblock so much so that people no longer see it as reliable and adblock developers grow increasingly tired of rewriting. So far, I can only recall a handful of times where adblock has straight up stopped working on YouTube.
Not just lower base salaries, its also that the good employees are at a greater disadvantage in negotiating raises / work conditions because an employer declining and letting them go instead would mean a loss of a work visa (if they don’t find other work) and potential deportation.
For example, Apple can’t legally mandate an 80hr work week. But being an at-will employer, they CAN just fire anyone working 40hrs/week for nebulous “performance concerns”. Who is more likely to decide to work 80hrs on their own to hit impossible performance targets? The guy who has unlimited time to go find another job or the guy who if he doesn’t find another job in 3 months has to pull his kids out of school and move halfway across the world?
You have a work visa worker by the balls way more than a full citizen.
Closed work permit for a single employer is the reason. I think a work permit should be closed to a single employer for 1 year then it can be open which will help reduce employer greed.
Not sure this logic tracks. PERM is a program that transitions the current visa holder workers to instead have a green card (aka no longer need a visa). If I were to follow your logic, Apple would be incentived to make the PERM postings more accessible.
The point of these PERM postings is to prove to DoL that the current employee deserves a green card because they’re not easily replaceable. If a qualified applicant applies to the PERM posting, they are not hired. It just delays the PERM process for the visa worker. If Apple wanted to keep the threat of deportation, doing the opposite of what they were fined would make more sense? Why would they want to fast track a green card for them?
They do it on Instagram too. I barely use Instagram as it is, but I have noticed that it’s suddenly loaded with “recommended threads” or something dumb
engadget.com
Top