More and Scammier Ads: The Perils of YouTube's Ad Privacy Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When users disable online ad personalization, they might be anticipating to see fewer ads that are "relevant" to them as a trade-off for more privacy. In this paper, we show that the tradeoff can go much further than this intuition. We conducted controlled experiments on YouTube in Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States to investigate the impact of disabling ad personalization on the quantity and quality of ads that users receive. Through experiments where emulated users with different ad privacy settings watched sequences of 400 videos, we show that disabling ad personalization can lead to the user being shown as much as 1.30 times more pre-roll ads than the default (least private) setting. More concerning is that in our experiments, the proportion of predatory ads increased 2.69 times compared to the default setting, from 2.5% to 8.7% of ads. This result highlights that certain user demographics (in this case, privacy-conscious users) can be exposed to significantly higher rates of predatory ads, and suggests that the platform's efforts to curb such ads are still falling short.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".