PESKY WIKIPEDEA. and now YOUTUBE 'Changes Coming'... Yeah, ok

[RJSV]

Of course, many saw this.  Yourube announcing 'Changes in Policy for new year 2022'.
AND now, Wikipedia pestering, while reminding me, they watch (me) so closely, they 'quote' exactly how many times they've hit me up, for dollar donation.

Heck: if the scrappy guy on the street quoted that way, I'd be CREEPED OUT, for sure.
   In case you are wondering: wiki says "sorry, we know this is THE SIXTH time, please don't ignore us"...

    Yeah 'free', but yous guys suck up every last minute detail, of my (dull, poor, fat, boring, etc) life.

Go spy on yourselves, creeps.
Thank you.

[ataradov]

I have not seen the counting version of the message, but I happily give Wikipedia money when they ask. They have a very good system. They don't send you a bill, but ask when you use the service. And every time it happens, I'm reminded just how much value I derive from its existence.

There are a number of tites like this that get my money despite being totally free.

[mfro]

Didn't see a counter as well.
I'm happily giving for Wikipedia every year as I'm considering a non-profit organisation that manages providing knowledge and education on a volunteer basis one of the brightest and most important ideas on the planet.

I'd never pay for Youtube, however. Find it odd you mention both in the same post.

[MK14]

Go spy on yourselves, creeps.
Thank you.

The reality is, that most places on the internet that you visit, probably/potentially hugely suck up what data they can about you.
For example, I recently did some searches and visited some Raspberry PI websites, as they seem to often be out of stock, at the moment (chip shortages, new version(s) came out, popular, Christmas, etc etc). Partly to see what my purchasing options are for them, which are not great, as they are hard to come by, currently.
Then (of course), many of the other websites I visited, have to blast me with Raspberry PI product adverts. Just to rub in, that I considered them, and mostly can't get them.

Ironically, WIKIPEDIA, is probably one of the safest and least data sucking places, you can visit.

[RJSV]

Yes, thanks, I see your point.  However, it's more complicated, in that the trend goes something like this:
   1.). You don't have, like 4 sites like this, it looks more like '1', at least in appearance. More arguing on that, but I want to just say that for now...
   2.). Everyone you 'need' to interact with wants to use that 'one'. When or if you complain, 'MONOPOLY', you get that 'huhhhhhh' look, like, 'dont you know about 'flick-flackers'? (I made that up) .
   Yeah, you reply, all 10 of their readers: Wiki has 'more'.
Then, your doctor wants a 'portal': you can use 'Google forms,' to sign up. Very convenient....No, that's a forced monopoly.
   No, I'm not stressed that Wiki is needed, in immediate sense. But I bet I can find (lots) of instance,where some school assignment sends students to research some topic.  See my point , if the student wants to do assignment, they go to Wiki site.
Plus, then, they won't have to go into the whole MONOPOLY dynamic, with others, teacher included.

    Making too much, of that ? 'There you go,' you can say. So it's back on me, to explain.
   I'd ask: What's my option, when teacher, employer, landlord, doctor says: " Just fill out this application, use Google forms..."
   Yes I know there is maybe, equiv alternate, if I don't like Wiki:. Please provide that, if you can. I just see MONOPOLY way too tolerated. (More with other sites but Wiki is a huge source of knowledge).

   MONOPOLIES actual do harm, and caution needed, in my view.

[ledtester]

If you use incognito mode the counter gets reset...

Second image is from visiting wikipedia in a new incognito window.

[RJSV]

mfro, and Mk14,   I appreciate your feedback:
   The Wiki site started the pitch for donations a few days ago:.  Saying something like, "...We know this is the fifth time we've asked, but please don't scroll down past this message ...".
Now you know, often going into Wiki with some subject question or difficult issue to look up. But now then you are disrupted, from that.  When I scroll a bit down, another reminder pops in. That's when I click out, so I don't know if there's more pitches coming.
Every time I've tried, it 'counts' the exact number. So if you've donated before, maybe they handle that different, I could see that. It's just creepy, but I guess they being open (about cookies).
   Problem is, when a 'competitor' wants to get into the information action.  They get, sort of 'freezed out'. There's probably a term for that in biological systems, but perhaps 'market saturation'?
   I see this effect in other industries.  A new venture gets denied resources, even though there's no new law, or explicit talk. Like: 'We don't need another BAKERY, on Jones Street", that sort of thing.
So, without explicit ban, perhaps a new bakery never gets viable business. And the existing one(s), they can be 'lazy', without direct consequences. Customer gets whatever level of 'quality' that the local 'playfield' has settled to.
Of course, gross incompetence WILL often produce change, new players, etc. But reality, often the bigger players in the shorter term, can loose sight of 'consequences', of half-assed, or shoddy product.

  Ok, anyway, YouTube got into post, partially due to, recent viewing now ALWAYS puts a see-thru ADVERT right front and center, across videos being played, if you are a 'free' internet browsing viewer. In other words, they've stepped things up, (maybe September they started the persistent AD, like a car insurance company AD.)
Also, cannot get through something, now you get advertisement in middle.  I tolerate some of that, it's a great free source. Just seems like a noticable jump in the cheap ADs.
   I've sometimes 'joked', sarcastically, that I want to use that model for personal stuff,:
Oh, did you need Fred's phone number?...Oh, hang on, Have you considered, I can sell you (these) vitamins...
Oh, and I will be 'tracking' you, after we hang up..."
   Most folks would respond, " That's ridiculous, stop trying to sell me stuff..."

   I don't see, however, as much problem with general businesses, like electronics sales, as those are obvious multiple competing businesses. I maybe see Wiki, Facebook, and small handful of others as more towards MONOPOLY - media like.
  Cookies, are more widely seen used, but I'm talking more about very small sub-set.
   Ever try use Yahoo mail, on an Android based cellphone ? It gets weird. That's MONOPOLY power asserting itself.

[mfro]

Tracking probably works very different (or not at all) in Europe (because of the EU's GDPR).

So things might look different depending on where you come from.

[james_s]

Somebody told me that wikipedia has tons of money and yet they regularly beg anyway. I don't know whether that's true or not, I have not investigated myself.

[KE5FX]

I was a regular donor to Wikipedia until they started using these tactics.  At this point, I no longer donate to them, because I don't want to close a positive feedback loop on this kind of behavior. 

So the donation that would have gone to Wikipedia now goes to archive.org.

[mfro]

If "somebody" told you "something", you can be relatively sure "something" is just guesswork at best.

Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation and - at least where I live - non-profit organisations have to provide regular statements of accounts and are not allowed any profit to continue to receive state sponsorship (like abatement of taxation). Look it up in your area of the world and don't just believe "somebody".

[james_s]

"Somebody" is a good friend of mine who is usually knowledgeable and doesn't just pull information out of his backside. In this case I have not personally looked into it and verified it as fact so I did not present it as such.

[ataradov]

Most recent audited reports are available here https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2020-annual-report/financials/#section-1 If I read that correctly, they have $200M in assets. Not a ton of money, but also not nothing.

I looked up the new banners people see, and I do agree, they are a bit much. I have not seen the new format yet, and yes, I'll probably skip this time and direct the money some place else. They seem to have done some A/B testing on what works best, and there is no need to encourage such practice.

In fact, the money most likely will go to KiCad, as I've been moving to it from Eagle, and basically it is is way better than Eagle.

[Haenk]

Interesting, they list about 100 million USD in long/short term investments.
I.e. money they put aside, so they are actually rather swimming in money (nowhere to put it to good use, other than investing it into something else).

My support has stopped many years ago, when they decided to erase my (rather good) articles due to "irrelevance".

Edit: The "number of visits" tracking *is* creepy. Probably it's a good thing the EU does not trust US companies handling data. (Though most people, including me, willingly give away some data.)

[mfro]

As a German user, your donation would most likely have gone to Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. anyway who's financial statement looks a different (as it's acknowledged "gemeinnützig"(charitable), they are not allowed to make any profit).

But if they deleted your (certainly precious) entries, it's their fault anyway

[Ed.Kloonk]

I have not seen the counting version of the message, but I happily give Wikipedia money when they ask. They have a very good system. They don't send you a bill, but ask when you use the service. And every time it happens, I'm reminded just how much value I derive from its existence.

There are a number of tites like this that get my money despite being totally free.

Whilst I would never suggest what you plough your money into, I do have a problem with Wikipedia.

From my standpoint, I have seen too many articles which are, um, how you say, 'fiddled with'. Certain paragraphs structure stand out like sore thumbs and when you read the article changelogs, you soon find out that it's the noisiest who get to desecrate the facts with their bullshit.

[PlainName]

Wikimedia Foundation can be susceptible to irreverent probing. For example:

https://www.theregister.com/2017/06/07/golden_handshakes_at_wikipedia/

Re the spying and counting of funding rejections, it is probably just a cookie placed on your PC. Go to another PC, or just block cookies or make them session-delete cookies, and you'll probably find it's lost track. Thus there is no spying: any incriminating evidence of your tight-fistedness is store on your personal machine.

[RJSV]

Ahh, "No Spying...". Thanks I, we can rest easy (snarky sarcasm).

   Actually, I've been dreading this morning, facing potentially a bunch of arguments, but response replies look good.
   Haenk:. Please, if you can set some time aside, I would like to read, what text you wrote, that got shuttled off to 'irrelevant' file hopper?

   Anyway, some better detail:
    YouTube changed, in that the 'Go to wide-screen' (horizontal or sideways movie screen) feature icon seems to be removed, but maybe only with newer YouTube material. I noticed older videos still have that.  And seems older videos also do not feature a  transparent ADVERTISEMENT, just sitting right there across middle of your view. When it's there, it's a static title like: 'ACME CAR INSURANCE CO, Service since 1933'.
   Monopoly comments, about using Android to access Yahoo email:
   Icon says 'email' on smartphone, but 'it' does not recognize 'email' as a general sense word: it is only 'their' email (gaggle).  So the work-around is to do search, on any of the other emails. So there is that 'blindness'. Expression there, humans use is "Don't insult my intelligence (by pretending there ARE NO other email providers.)
   That little trouble got worsened, when UTUBE sent that recent email..."Hey wait a minute..." I thought:
"I never really gave my (yahoo) email out to either Google nor YouTube" (Google owns YouRube). That doubles down, on previous described 'blind spot', and again, they playing stupid, and insulting my intelligence. That's what got me to react like I did, wanting to post a question, on what YOUTUBE said is changing in user terms of agreement, for 2022.
  Oh, and writing about YOURUBE, I recall several times dozing off, late night while YouTube was playing..
Woke up to a 'Sign-up' screen and notice said:
   'Sign-up Complete !'.   Sign Up ? That was, at best, my pillow, or edge of blanket, grazing the touch screen, on my smartphone (Alcatel w Android).
   I just feel like, everything is hard/impossible, until it's some commercial advantage: Then things happen, almost spontaneously, as just described.

   As to some business, like Arduino board sales, also use COOKIES, but there is more diverse businesses to choose from.  I see job advertisements, saying 'respond via Facebook...' Really ? No options.

   I think about this aspect, of getting free info, that's a value, but don't have 'debate' skills to fully engage that.
   I DID buy the book, simply to do things like 'COPY PHOTO TO CLIPBOARD'. But the book, Android for Dummies, seems to require ' Purchase an App, for that, and the Photo APP will describe how to.
That's not an 'advanced feature'; I thought I was going pretty far, just buying the book, for simple screen function.  Nope, turns out that book is just full of promotional language: Buy the App.

[thm_w]

Interesting, they list about 100 million USD in long/short term investments.
I.e. money they put aside, so they are actually rather swimming in money (nowhere to put it to good use, other than investing it into something else).

My support has stopped many years ago, when they decided to erase my (rather good) articles due to "irrelevance".

Edit: The "number of visits" tracking *is* creepy. Probably it's a good thing the EU does not trust US companies handling data. (Though most people, including me, willingly give away some data.)

Just because they have buffer money does not mean they need to use it up immediately, Wikipedia should not be focused on growth.
Anyway, with current inflation rates its generally a bad idea to hold it all in cash.

[Haenk]

But if they deleted your (certainly precious) entries, it's their fault anyway

Funny thing is - some of the topics have been established again in recent years, with way less content and some incorrect statements.
There is a reason why wikipedia.de has so little content compared to wikipedia.com - it all dates back to pre-2010, when wikipedia.de-admins just erased everything they did not like or care about.
Honestly, knowledge is never irrelevant - even niche topics. At some point, someone will be looking for exactly this information - and wikipedia *had* it, but decided to delete it.

[magic]

Wikipedia is a perfect example of dodgy technology.

It's good for simple, widely known and easily verifiable objective facts, such as "the list of AMD Ryzen CPUs" or "silicon".
All else is crap and you will learn it fast if you try to use information from there to actually do/create something IRL.

Their begging goes away if you disable JS and cookies.
In fact, most websites become much better that way, except for those which simply go blank

[rsjsouza]

Wikipedia is a very useful site, given that many of the easily verifiable things are quite needed (at least by me) on a day-to-day basis.

When social/politics/history is involved on a topic, then it becomes an entirely different story... That is when this model falls apart.

I have noticed the push and counter, but it didn't bother me too much - perhaps because I use different browsers for different things and try to keep some sort of isolation from important things.

[SiliconWizard]

Wikipedia was a great idea at the beginning. But as it grew bigger, it inevitably got the baggage that all big similar organizations get.
It's part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and you just need to take a look at the main sponsors of this foundation to realize that it can't be an independent and unbiased source of information.
Thinking that big money can come with no strings attached is a violent delusion.

[Fflint]

As this thread is also about YouTube and its annoying ads I would like to point out there is a free (open source) app that automatically strips all the ads. I have no affiliation with the app creators. I'm just a user. I used to watch a lot of YouTube via their official app on my android TV until they started interrupting videos with their ads. Then I found the app called smartyoutubeTV (open source, on github at smartyoutubetv.github.io). Not only it skips the ads, but also all the sponsored content, intros, etc. It is great. One can login into it with the normal YouTube account to have your subscriptions, playlist etc.

There are some bugs (currently with opening play lists), but I think this is because I have a beta version. I also have a feeling YouTube doesn't promote most popular videos to users that block ads, but I got used to that and I find content via subscriptions.

Odysee etc, are still a joke unfortunately (on android TV at least) so we're stuck with YouTube for a while longer.

[YurkshireLad]

I only watch YouTube videos in Firefox, no apps. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on YouTube.

[Haenk]

Youtube really became annoying lately with their ads - however I do see the need of earning money at some point to offer these services for free. Also the content creators benefit (to some level) from the delivered ads - I doubt many of the content creators would be able to do their videos without any sort of income...

[PlainName]

I doubt many of the content creators would be able to do their videos without any sort of income...

Maybe if viewers had to pay actual money to watch, there would be many fewer videos available but of consistently good quality. And maybe stuff that should be in writing would actually be in writing instead of being read into a camera.

[MK14]

Rant: The Internet Archive,
https://web.archive.org/ has just apparently been considerably worse.

It puts up a money begging thing, which needs to be closed (like wiki). But then it also, puts up another pop-up window, which hides/blocks some of the needed webpage functionality, until you either remove it and/or fill out your name and email address, so they can hassle you in the future.

What makes it especially annoying, is that it seems to be poorly programmed, so on my computer setup, was a real pain to get rid of, and needed lots of messing around to eliminated, for now. Because the cancel button (X) was shown off the screen (i.e. it was NOT clickable). I hope that was an accident and not done on purpose.
I'd be annoyed if it was on purpose, maybe it was designed like that. How horrible, if that was the case.

Can You Chip In?

They’re trying to change history—don’t let them. The Wayback Machine is a crucial resource in the fight against disinformation, and now more than ever we need your help. Right now we’re preserving history as it unfolds, keeping track of who’s saying what and when—all without charging for access, selling user data, or running ads. Instead, the Internet Archive (which runs this project) relies on the generosity of individuals to help us keep the record straight.

We don't ask often, but right now, we have a 2-to-1 Matching Gift Campaign, tripling the impact of every donation. If each of our users gave just $10, we could end this fundraiser today—so if you find all these bits and bytes useful, please pitch in.

—Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive

Send me an email reminder
Email address (required)
First name
Last name
 Submit
By submitting, you agree to receive donor-related emails from the Internet Archive. Your privacy is important to us. We do not sell or trade your information with anyone.

[MazeFrame]

Implementing a site-visits-"tracker" is rather simple:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9106720/keep-track-of-visit-count-in-cookies#9107220

Basically: Request count-cookie from client, if none, create. If exists: +1
No magic or evil database in that.

[thm_w]

Rant: The Internet Archive,
https://web.archive.org/ has just apparently been considerably worse.

I'm not seeing it with adblock disabled, maybe they got rid of it?
Usually to close an overlay you can press "Esc", but it doesn't always work.

Internet archive is worth a donation.

Tax filing: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767

[Bud]

I doubt many of the content creators would be able to do their videos without any sort of income...

Ask any content creator why are they making videos and most of them will say "because I love making videos !". OK, so if they love making videos then they should make their goddamn videos and stop begging. And if they are unable to sustain then they should find a real job.

[ataradov]

Ask any content creator why are they making videos and most of them will say "because I love making videos !". OK, so if they love making videos then they should make their goddamn videos and stop begging.

I love programming, so I have a programming job. Loving something does not mean you have to do it for free. "Begging" is just a part of the job. Probably not the most pleasant part, but all jobs have unpleasant parts.  Nobody would give you money for a "real" job or otherwise if you don't ask for it.

[MK14]

Rant: The Internet Archive,
https://web.archive.org/ has just apparently been considerably worse.

I'm not seeing it with adblock disabled, maybe they got rid of it?
Usually to close an overlay you can press "Esc", but it doesn't always work.

Internet archive is worth a donation.

Tax filing: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943242767

Putting aside who deserves a donation, which is a different and complicated question, and just concentrating on annoying nag screens. It does still show it for me (in the UK and who has used it a fair bit, somewhat recently).

Screen dumps shown here:
They haven't come out in the right sizes. The first one displays on screen, at full width (i.e. much bigger), but the second (last) one, comes out a fair bit smaller.

[thm_w]

OK now I see what you mean, it only showed up after I clicked through a result, and its just a banner at the top, I can scroll past it. There was no need to click the 'x' button.

edit: and now that I clicked 'x' it seems to not show again.

[MK14]

OK now I see what you mean, it only showed up after I clicked through a result, and its just a banner at the top, I can scroll past it. There was no need to click the 'x' button.

edit: and now that I clicked 'x' it seems to not show again.

I think it is because I originally clicked, 'maybe later'. Which made the second pop-up nag thing come up, and maybe made it more interested in repeating the message, or something.

When I'm concentrating on something, and want to just immediately know the answer to something, and/or get more information. E.g. Perhaps I'm reading another webpage, extensively, and just wanted to know what they meant by something, etc.
I can get frustrated, when the other web-page(s), attempt to distract me with annoying pop-ups, adverts and other stuff.

When I'm less busy/occupied, I would have more time and energy, to consider their monetary requests, and  spend time reading their stuff.

I'd much prefer them to just have a small/tiny banner/section/bit in the top right hand corner, called something like Donations/Funding-Help, rather than (annoying to at least me), pop-ups, which have to be clicked in certain ways to cancel/remove.

Don't get me started on these annoying EU regulated, we have cookies, jamming up many web-pages these days. Until you go through their (sometimes multi-pages and complicated), cookie details things, disable each section, one by one. Then have to find the accept/save options button. To unfreeze and then read the webpage.
We (UK) are not even in the EU now, and it could have been done in a much more user friendly manner. NOT semi-breaking the internet, kind of way.

[james_s]

Don't get me started on these annoying EU regulated, we have cookies, jamming up many web-pages these days. Until you go through their (sometimes multi-pages and complicated), cookie details things, disable each section, one by one. Then have to find the accept/save options button. To unfreeze and then read the webpage.
We (UK) are not even in the EU now, and it could have been done in a much more user friendly manner. NOT semi-breaking the internet, kind of way.

We (USA) have never been part of the EU and we get the same stupid popups on a huge range of websites. It's a poster boy of of unintended consequences!

[magic]

We are not in the US and have had a St Floyd protest last year. Welcome to globalism and tell me it wasn't your idea

As for nag screens, a lot of problems disappear if you disable MalwareScript in the browser. As expected.

[MK14]

We (USA) have never been part of the EU and we get the same stupid popups on a huge range of websites. It's a poster boy of of unintended consequences!

As for nag screens, a lot of problems disappear if you disable MalwareScript in the browser. As expected.

Thanks for the tip (eliminating nag screens). But, what I'm really looking for ...

On top of ad-blocking and malware etc blocking, some kind of method/program/technique/firewall-script etc etc. Which can completely eliminate the arguably broken, cookie nag screens, we seem to get all over the place.

When you are doing electronics and/or software and/or web-stuff etc. If it is something which is not a normal part of your experience, you use to be able to (every couple of minutes), highlight a search term (e.g. does Python perform array bounds checking by default ?), and almost instantly get to a webpage which answers that question ... 'yes'/'no'/'it depends..'.
Then carry on writing the script, or whatever one was doing.

These days, those annoying cookie nag screens, just completely mess up such work flows.

What I really want is something, which lets your web-browsing completely eliminate such annoying disruptions. I.e. like going back to 2015 (or whatever the safe years are), before that thing started.

I'm not sure if any such thing exists yet ?

The way it should have really been sorted, is that websites give an extra option, somewhere to change the cookie settings, if a user wants to.

[PlainName]

https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

That takes care of the nag screens (except for sites that really REALLY want to piss you off). It doesn't deal with inappropriate cookies, but as someone that cares about them you would have some kind of cookie manager anyway which would delete or otherwise deal with them.

[MK14]

https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/

That takes care of the nag screens (except for sites that really REALLY want to piss you off). It doesn't deal with inappropriate cookies, but as someone that cares about them you would have some kind of cookie manager anyway which would delete or otherwise deal with them.

Thanks, that looks (not tried it yet, but from the details) brilliant!      

I'm going to be re-choosing browsers, and re-installing stuff and/or doing fresh install, somewhat soon. So, that will be a good time to test it out.

The ironic joke, is I don't really mind about cookies recording stuff, most of the time. Who knows what else the servers store and keep about people, anyway.
It is just those annoying pop-ups, which freeze the website until you have to fill them in and then click them, that really annoy me.

There are rumors floating about, that google chrome web-browser, is going to effectively ban ad-blockers (or something like that). Pushing me to change web-browsers anyway.

[james_s]

I don't think they will. All that would do is cause huge numbers of people to stop using Chrome. People who want to block ads are going to block ads, it does no good to try to force them not to.

[MK14]

I don't think they will. All that would do is cause huge numbers of people to stop using Chrome. People who want to block ads are going to block ads, it does no good to try to force them not to.

Some rumors say that you tube may start banning youtube users (viewers), who use ad-blockers, from their website and services (I guess).

Old article from Dec 2019:
https://techlapse.com/global/youtube-declared-war-on-ad-blockers-no-more-adblock-from-december-10/

From December 10th you will no longer be able to use Adblock on YouTube: the announcement comes from Google itself, which is sending a notification to users who access its service.

Update: Youtube VS Adblock Update: Claims policy is transparent, yet it is vague

For years, YouTube has allowed the use of Adblock, or software that could bypass advertising content, on its platform. Now, however, YouTube has declared war on Adblocks, and above all on users who use them.

Adblock on YouTube: from December 10th everything changes
The new rules clearly state that:

” YouTube may prevent access if it believes, in its exclusive direction, that the provision of the Service for you is no longer commercially viable “

This means that Google, and YouTube, reserve the right not only to exclude users from the video streaming platform, but also to terminate the provision of all services. That  ” commercially viable” indicates the status of users as exchange products: YouTube offers literally billions of videos for free, apart from the YouTube Originals content that are behind a toll barrier (paywall).

Since no user pays a penny, neither YouTube nor its advertisers, it is logical to think that the product to be sold is us users. In exchange for viewing advertisements, YouTube continues to provide a service for free that would otherwise cost tens if not hundreds of dollars a year.

It is therefore logical to think that Adblocks on YouTube are bad for the company to eradicate. Users on the other hand, always try to have the most comfortable and easy access to video content.

The blame for using Adblock, however, is often to be attributed also to the creators of content: it is not possible that in an 18-minute video there are 10 advertising breaks, including the pre-roll videos that are uploaded before you even watch the video.

Adblock on YouTube: is the ban risk real?
The risk for users who continue to use Adblock on YouTube is real. The company can freely exclude accounts that try to circumvent the new rules, using Adblock software or Adblock extensions.

Risk concerning the complete ban for other Google services, such as Gmail and Adsense, is less likely.

Much more recent, 10th December 2021:
https://securityboulevard.com/2021/12/google-nukes-ad-blockers-manifest-v3-is-coming/

Google Nukes Ad-Blockers—Manifest V3 is Coming
by Richi Jennings on December 10, 2021
Makers of ad-blocker and anti-tracking browser extensions are spitting blood. Google is planning to change everything, removing features in the Chrome browser APIs that these extensions rely on.

Google is doing it in the name of security, privacy and performance. But extension writers—including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)—smell a rat.

Google's (Youtubes), recent removal of the DISLIKE feature, from users (making it only visible to the videos owner), seem to show that google/Youtube/Chrome, are moving in directions, which may be completely against users interests, wants, desires, feelings, etc.

tl;dr
The recent removal of being able to see the number of DISLIKES, on videos, is making it much harder to prejudge the quality of unknown videos, from unknown video channels. Tending to make me ignore videos like that, more and more.

[magic]

In related news, Google discovers that TV was TV for a reason and becomes TV

For each user who is discouraged by lack of fair ratings, there is ten users who would have been discouraged by downvotes but now are not and will watch the crap.

[MK14]

In related news, Google discovers that TV was TV for a reason and becomes TV

For each user who is discouraged by lack of fair ratings, there is ten users who would have been discouraged by downvotes but now are not and will watch the crap.

It was NOT just about what one watches, or not. When someone is giving advise about something, you can use the number of dislikes (or rather the ratio between that, positives and viewing figures), to get a rough guide/feel as to how serious/safe/accurate the advise is.

If it gets a huge number of down-votes, then perhaps there is something wrong with the technical accuracy of the video, and/or it is inaccurate, and many other possible problems with the video, are being highlighted.

On the one hand, it is not as bad as I feared it would be. There are other signs and ways, of getting a feel of how good/accurate/reliable the video is. But it tends to waste more of my time, and makes it harder to find the good content on youtube, amongst a huge sea, of not so good videos.

[RJSV]

   Hahaha; Wikipedia didn't step on my action, today:
Had clicked into WIKI, from an eevblog posting I was reading... Did another couple of checks, and no; things look back to normal (no persistant pleas for donations, that had been asking "Don't click away..."

   Not sure there, but NOW, YouTube putting themselves, front and lower center, offer 'free trial'.
.......wait ....oh, I guess that's for the paid movies.
But, as someone else mentioned recently here, there was no place to click the youtube AD 'X' to skip AD, and also started putting crap, on a 'behind' box. That box was kinda behind (the real) stuff, but kept sneaking out, sort-of, between the front and center box, and poking out, partially;
   "FREE TRIAL OFFER..FREE TRIAL OFFER.."
I had some word definitions I needed to look up, and you know, also, how folks can get all sidetracked, by lame interruptions you can't control.

   NOW, I'm not going to 'whine out' every nit picking freagan time I see it.   Maybe just a representative 'sampling'.

[SiliconWizard]

Funnily enough, Wikipedia hosts an article about criticism of Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

It's rather long. I didn't inspect it thoroughly to check whether there were biases in this article and/or missing information.