On 2023-08-20 6:30 p.m., 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
> On 20/08/2023 23:06, carl@invalid.com wrote:
>> Whoops! Seems I didn't notice the 2020 date. :o(
>
> One thing that most people don't know is that Google is going to define
> and accredit web browsers and those that fails Google's test (called Web
> Environment Integrity) then they will be barred/blocked from connecting
> to the web. This means most fringe browsers (that includes Firefox and
> its other variants) won't be able to connect. At first I thought this
> was a joke but no, it's a fact and some browser makers are taking it
> very seriously and asking the law makers to intervene.
>
> <https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md>
>
> Google is now the leader in Web technologies and people must take
> everything Google says, very very seriously. Firefox won't exist in 5
> years time so ignore FF completely. All other browsers are using
> Google's web engine so the standard set by Google becomes the LAW!!!
> People won't like it but Google and Microsoft are the dominant figures
> in the IT sector. Even Amazon and Oracle is worried about Google's
> "Integrity Test" because they have products that rely on Web technologies.

Like in every other sector where there is a problem, open-source will
emerge with a solution to the problem. No, not Mozilla, I'm talking
about individuals or small groups of developers.

--
RabidPedagog
TG: @RabidPedagog
Galatians 6:7

On 8/21/23 16:05, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-08-20 6:30 p.m., 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>> On 20/08/2023 23:06, carl@invalid.com wrote:
>>> Whoops! Seems I didn't notice the 2020 date.  :o(
>>
>> One thing that most people don't know is that Google is going to
>> define and accredit web browsers and those that fails Google's test
>> (called Web Environment Integrity) then they will be barred/blocked
>> from connecting to the web. This means most fringe browsers (that
>> includes Firefox and its other variants) won't be able to connect. At
>> first I thought this was a joke but no, it's a fact and some browser
>> makers are taking it very seriously and asking the law makers to
>> intervene.
>>
>> <https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md>
>>
>> Google is now the leader in Web technologies and people must take
>> everything Google says, very very seriously. Firefox won't exist in 5
>> years time so ignore FF completely. All other browsers are using
>> Google's web engine so the standard set by Google becomes the LAW!!!
>> People won't like it but Google and Microsoft are the dominant figures
>> in the IT sector. Even Amazon and Oracle is worried about Google's
>> "Integrity Test" because they have products that rely on Web
>> technologies.
>
> Like in every other sector where there is a problem, open-source will
> emerge with a solution to the problem. No, not Mozilla, I'm talking
> about individuals or small groups of developers.
>
It's also worth noting that Microsoft has no other choice then to accept
Google's Manifest v3 or run a soft fork of the whole chrome project.
Plus they probably don't care about the downsides of it that we, the
users, are concerned about.

On 8/21/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
> On 2023-08-20 6:30 p.m., 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>> On 20/08/2023 23:06, carl@invalid.com wrote:
>>> Whoops! Seems I didn't notice the 2020 date. :o(
>>
>> One thing that most people don't know is that Google is going to define
>> and accredit web browsers and those that fails Google's test (called Web
>> Environment Integrity) then they will be barred/blocked from connecting
>> to the web. This means most fringe browsers (that includes Firefox and
>> its other variants) won't be able to connect. At first I thought this
>> was a joke but no, it's a fact and some browser makers are taking it
>> very seriously and asking the law makers to intervene.
>>
>> <https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md>
>>
>> Google is now the leader in Web technologies and people must take
>> everything Google says, very very seriously. Firefox won't exist in 5
>> years time so ignore FF completely. All other browsers are using
>> Google's web engine so the standard set by Google becomes the LAW!!!
>> People won't like it but Google and Microsoft are the dominant figures
>> in the IT sector. Even Amazon and Oracle is worried about Google's
>> "Integrity Test" because they have products that rely on Web technologies.
>
> Like in every other sector where there is a problem, open-source will
> emerge with a solution to the problem. No, not Mozilla, I'm talking
> about individuals or small groups of developers.
>

Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?

Still running Windows 7, I set
Followup-To: alt.comp.software.firefox

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Beyond Meat, Impossible Meat, and other such meat substitutes
represent the ultimate in ultra-processed foods, which my doctor
told me to avoid. Real meat is natural. Beyond Meat and
Impossible Meat are definitely not natural.

On 2023-08-21 15:29, David E. Ross wrote:
> On 8/21/2023 6:05 AM, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-08-20 6:30 p.m., 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2023 23:06, carl@invalid.com wrote:
>>>> Whoops! Seems I didn't notice the 2020 date. :o(
>>>
>>> One thing that most people don't know is that Google is going to define
>>> and accredit web browsers and those that fails Google's test (called Web
>>> Environment Integrity) then they will be barred/blocked from connecting
>>> to the web. This means most fringe browsers (that includes Firefox and
>>> its other variants) won't be able to connect. At first I thought this
>>> was a joke but no, it's a fact and some browser makers are taking it
>>> very seriously and asking the law makers to intervene.
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md>
>>>
>>> Google is now the leader in Web technologies and people must take
>>> everything Google says, very very seriously. Firefox won't exist in 5
>>> years time so ignore FF completely. All other browsers are using
>>> Google's web engine so the standard set by Google becomes the LAW!!!
>>> People won't like it but Google and Microsoft are the dominant figures
>>> in the IT sector. Even Amazon and Oracle is worried about Google's
>>> "Integrity Test" because they have products that rely on Web technologies.
>>
>> Like in every other sector where there is a problem, open-source will
>> emerge with a solution to the problem. No, not Mozilla, I'm talking
>> about individuals or small groups of developers.
>>
>
> Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?
>
> Still running Windows 7, I set
> Followup-To: alt.comp.software.firefox

That's not polite, many people (for example me) will not see the answers.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Am 22.08.23 um 16:12 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> On 2023-08-21 15:29, David E. Ross wrote:
>> Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?
>>
>> Still running Windows 7, I set
>> Followup-To: alt.comp.software.firefox
>
> That's not polite, many people (for example me) will not see the answers.

It is certainly not polite to spread Firefox- or browser-issues to
Windows-groups. These groups are completely OT.

I simply do not care (anymore) about Windows. Any Windose-specific
issues can be discussed where they belong and are completely redundant
in this Firefox-group. If you are interested then subscribe to this group.

X-posting to Windose-groups left intentionally untouched.
FUP2 acsf.

--
Alea iacta est

On 2023-08-22 11:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 22.08.23 um 16:12 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>> On 2023-08-21 15:29, David E. Ross wrote:
>>> Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?
>>>
>>> Still running Windows 7, I set
>>> Followup-To: alt.comp.software.firefox
>>
>> That's not polite, many people (for example me) will not see the answers.
>
> It is certainly not polite to spread Firefox- or browser-issues to
> Windows-groups. These groups are completely OT.
>
> I simply do not care (anymore) about Windows. Any Windose-specific
> issues can be discussed where they belong and are completely redundant
> in this Firefox-group. If you are interested then subscribe to this group.
>
> X-posting to Windose-groups left intentionally untouched.
> FUP2 acsf.

I'm not subscribed to firefox group, so put the windows groups back as I
requested. Please be polite.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-08-22 11:50, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> > Am 22.08.23 um 16:12 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> >> On 2023-08-21 15:29, David E. Ross wrote:
> >>> Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?
> >>>
> >>> Still running Windows 7, I set
> >>> Followup-To: alt.comp.software.firefox
> >>
> >> That's not polite, many people (for example me) will not see the answers.
> >
> > It is certainly not polite to spread Firefox- or browser-issues to
> > Windows-groups. These groups are completely OT.
> >
> > I simply do not care (anymore) about Windows. Any Windose-specific
> > issues can be discussed where they belong and are completely redundant
> > in this Firefox-group. If you are interested then subscribe to this group.
> >
> > X-posting to Windose-groups left intentionally untouched.
> > FUP2 acsf.
>
>
> I'm not subscribed to firefox group, so put the windows groups back as I
> requested. Please be polite.

The situation is actually the *reverse* of what David E. Ross and Jörg
Lorenz are indicating/implying:

The *original post* was only crossposted to the Windows 10 and Windows
11 groups. Then ... ahum ... 'Good Guy' crossposted also to the Firefox
group and now some - like David and Jörg - mistakingly think it should
be only in the Firefox group and not in the Windows groups.

Since the OP was about Microsoft (Edge) and Google Chrome, if anything
should be cut, it's the Firefox group, not the Windows groups.

QED.

Am 22.08.23 um 20:18 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
> I'm not subscribed to firefox group

Takes less than a minute.

--
Alea iacta est

On 8/21/2023 7:21 AM, solid hyrax wrote:
> On 8/21/23 16:05, RabidPedagog wrote:
>> On 2023-08-20 6:30 p.m., 😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
>>> On 20/08/2023 23:06, carl@invalid.com wrote:
>>>> Whoops! Seems I didn't notice the 2020 date.  :o(
>>>
>>> One thing that most people don't know is that Google is going to
>>> define and accredit web browsers and those that fails Google's test
>>> (called Web Environment Integrity) then they will be barred/blocked
>>> from connecting to the web. This means most fringe browsers (that
>>> includes Firefox and its other variants) won't be able to connect. At
>>> first I thought this was a joke but no, it's a fact and some browser
>>> makers are taking it very seriously and asking the law makers to
>>> intervene.
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md>
>>>
>>> Google is now the leader in Web technologies and people must take
>>> everything Google says, very very seriously. Firefox won't exist in 5
>>> years time so ignore FF completely. All other browsers are using
>>> Google's web engine so the standard set by Google becomes the LAW!!!
>>> People won't like it but Google and Microsoft are the dominant figures
>>> in the IT sector. Even Amazon and Oracle is worried about Google's
>>> "Integrity Test" because they have products that rely on Web
>>> technologies.
>>
>> Like in every other sector where there is a problem, open-source will
>> emerge with a solution to the problem. No, not Mozilla, I'm talking
>> about individuals or small groups of developers.
>>
> It's also worth noting that Microsoft has no other choice then to accept
> Google's Manifest v3 or run a soft fork of the whole chrome project.
> Plus they probably don't care about the downsides of it that we, the
> users, are concerned about.
>

Okay, here it is without a Followup-To.

Since I do not connect to the Web via Google, how will they block me?

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

For 30 years, I was a software test engineer, testing the
software used by the U.S. military to operate its space
satellites. I had a very high security clearance. If I
were convicted of what Donald Trump has been accused regarding
his keeping classified documents in his home, I would have
been sentenced to decades in prison. Thus, I indeed support
the concept of equal treatment under the law.

Am 22.08.2023 um 19:15:06 Uhr schrieb Frank Slootweg:

> The *original post* was only crossposted to the Windows 10 and
> Windows 11 groups. Then ... ahum ... 'Good Guy' crossposted also to
> the Firefox group and now some - like David and Jörg - mistakingly
> think it should be only in the Firefox group and not in the Windows
> groups.

He wanted to spread his spam to another group, that is the reason for
that.

Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 22.08.2023 um 19:15:06 Uhr schrieb Frank Slootweg:
>
> > The *original post* was only crossposted to the Windows 10 and
> > Windows 11 groups. Then ... ahum ... 'Good Guy' crossposted also to
> > the Firefox group and now some - like David and Jörg - mistakingly
> > think it should be only in the Firefox group and not in the Windows
> > groups.
>
> He wanted to spread his spam to another group, that is the reason for
> that.

Yes, I/we know 'Good Guy' all too well, that's why I gave my '... ahum
....' preamble (which Google Translate tells me should have been 'ahem',
'ahum' is Dutch).

On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
<Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:

>IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.

While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -
there's nothing worse than an ad in the middle of a musical
performance!

On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:28:51 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
><Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>
>>IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.
>
>While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
>Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -

How do you do that?

>there's nothing worse than an ad in the middle of a musical
>performance!

On 09.01.24 15:02, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:28:51 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>
>>> IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.
>>
>> While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
>> Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -
>
> How do you do that?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
wrote:

>On 09.01.24 15:02, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:28:51 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.
>>>
>>> While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
>>> Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -
>>
>> How do you do that?
>
>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/

I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.

If YouTube Premium weren't so expensive, I would use it, but $13.99 a
month is way too much.

On 10.01.24 15:56, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09.01.24 15:02, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:28:51 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.
>>>>
>>>> While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
>>>> Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -
>>>
>>> How do you do that?
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/
>
>
> I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
> get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
> can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.

Does not happen (yet) here in Europe. Must be a geoigraphic issue. Sorry
for that.

> If YouTube Premium weren't so expensive, I would use it, but $13.99 a
> month is way too much.

Netflix is more expensive.

--
"Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)

On 1/10/2024 6:56 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09.01.24 15:02, Ken Blake wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:28:51 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 00:01:00 +0100, ? Good Guy ?
>>>> <Hello.World@example.onion> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> IMO Firefox won't be around in 5 years time. The stats are diabolical. Less than 3% of all users actually use Firefox and these are all using very old systems that are deemed to be insecure according to google.
>>>>
>>>> While I use both Chrome and Firefox, I primarily use Firefox for
>>>> Youtube as I've found it better at getting around Youtube's ads -
>>>
>>> How do you do that?
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/
>
>
> I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
> get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
> can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.
>
> If YouTube Premium weren't so expensive, I would use it, but $13.99 a
> month is way too much.
>

I am using uBlock Origin 1.16.4.30 from
<https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock-for-firefox-legacy> with SeaMonkey
2.53.18. YouTube does not seem to notice it.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rosde.com/>

Paris mayor quits X platform, calling it a 'gigantic global sewer'.
Others characterize X (previously known as Twitter) as the place
where truth goes to die.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, hugybear@gmx.net:
>>>. . .

>>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/

>I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
>get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
>can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.

Then uninstall that and use uBlock Origin instead.

>If YouTube Premium weren't so expensive, I would use it, but $13.99 a
>month is way too much.

There is no reason to subscribe to that unless there is a specific tv
series produced for YouTube Premium that you care to watch. Regular
YouTube content doesn't require a paid subscription to view.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:59:55 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, hugybear@gmx.net:
>
>>>>. . .
>
>>>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/
>
>>I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
>>get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
>>can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.
>
>Then uninstall that and use uBlock Origin instead.

I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message

>
>>If YouTube Premium weren't so expensive, I would use it, but $13.99 a
>>month is way too much.
>
>There is no reason to subscribe to that unless there is a specific tv
>series produced for YouTube Premium that you care to watch. Regular
>YouTube content doesn't require a paid subscription to view.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:59:55 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>Tue, 9 Jan 2024 17:29:05 +0100, hugybear@gmx.net:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-youtube/

>>>I just installed that. When I try to play something from YouTube, I
>>>get the message "Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of Service" and I
>>>can't proceed unless I allow ads or use YouTube Premium.

>>Then uninstall that and use uBlock Origin instead.

>I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message

Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?

If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.

>>>. . .

Adam H. Kerman wrote on 1/10/24 12:09 PM:
> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>> adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message
>
> Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?
>
> If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.
>

+1
Ken's URL that gives the message(""Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of
Service") would be helpful

The FF add-on is working fine on my Win10 Pro 22H2 and Win11 Pro 23H2
devices - everything updated in Windows through Jan. 23 and FF running
the latest release.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:36:49 -0700, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman wrote on 1/10/24 12:09 PM:
>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>> I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>>> adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message
>>
>> Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?
>>
>> If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.
>>
>
>+1
>Ken's URL that gives the message(""Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of
>Service") would be helpful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zo6UfK7o7k&list=RD353DbFxtoG0&index=6
>
>The FF add-on is working fine on my Win10 Pro 22H2 and Win11 Pro 23H2
>devices - everything updated in Windows through Jan. 23 and FF running
>the latest release.

On 1/10/2024 5:18 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:36:49 -0700, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote on 1/10/24 12:09 PM:
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>>>> adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message
>>>
>>> Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?
>>>
>>> If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>> Ken's URL that gives the message(""Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of
>> Service") would be helpful
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zo6UfK7o7k&list=RD353DbFxtoG0&index=6

FF 121.0.1 w/AdBlocker Ultimate and the guitar music opens and plays for
me with no ads or message from YouTube

>>
>> The FF add-on is working fine on my Win10 Pro 22H2 and Win11 Pro 23H2
>> devices - everything updated in Windows through Jan. 23 and FF running
>> the latest release.

--
Stand With Israel!
NOTE: If you use Google Groups I don't see you,
unless you're whitelisted and that's doubtful.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:36:49 -0700, winstonmvp@gmail.com:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote on 1/10/24 12:09 PM:
>>>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>>>>I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>>>>adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message

>>>Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?

>>>If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.

>>+1
>>Ken's URL that gives the message(""Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of
>>Service") would be helpful

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zo6UfK7o7k&list=RD353DbFxtoG0&index=6

Very nice playing but it didn't go to the index point. It started at the
beginning.

I cannot recreate the situation you were in.

Did you try dumping cookies? I can't think why that might be the issue
but it's worth dumping anyway.

>>The FF add-on is working fine on my Win10 Pro 22H2 and Win11 Pro 23H2
>>devices - everything updated in Windows through Jan. 23 and FF running
>>the latest release.

Ken Blake wrote on 1/10/24 4:18 PM:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:36:49 -0700, ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote on 1/10/24 12:09 PM:
>>> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>>>> I already had that installed. I just tried uninstalling
>>>> adblock-for-youtube and I got the same message
>>>
>>> Did you force your cookie to expire or delete it?
>>>
>>> If you provide the URL I'll see what result I get.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>> Ken's URL that gives the message(""Ad blockers violate YouTube's Terms of
>> Service") would be helpful
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zo6UfK7o7k&list=RD353DbFxtoG0&index=6
>>
>> The FF add-on is working fine on my Win10 Pro 22H2 and Win11 Pro 23H2
>> devices - everything updated in Windows through Jan. 23 and FF running
>> the latest release.

No issues, no ads for that video in FF 120.0.1 using that FF add-on
ad-blocker(Clean YouTube.

Surprisingly, opening the same url/video in SeaMonkey 2.53.18, Edge, and
Chrome opened and played the entire video without any ads - all browsers
without any ad blocking add-ons installed.
- If one clicks on another video(link on the same page) in any or these
3 browsers with no ad-block add-ons, the 'another' video starts with an
advertisement before playing the video.
=> Unlike FF with the ad-block add-on, clicking another video plays the
'another' video without ads or any prompting that states 'Ad blockers
violate YT'w TOS'.

Which means => just be aware that a youtube video may play without ads in
multiple different browsers on first or subsequent access even without
the installation/presence of an ad-block add-on.

Same as before, can't duplicate your reported condition...something else
at your end is obviously in play, possibly....
- one or more FF add-ons on your device conflicting with each other when
accessing youtube video
- FF settings, including your specific security ones, different than
others using FF
- Possibly conflict with items present(if using it) in your hosts file
- something else (unknown atm or without further info)

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ