The last scenario is clearly a breach of anti-trust laws. It is time for alphabet to be broken up. Their monopoly is way worse than AT&T every was.
Comment on YouTube Says New 5-Second Video Load Delay Is Supposed to Punish Ad Blockers, Not Firefox Users
queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
“They’re the same picture.”
Also, that does not explain why:
- Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue
- Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue
- FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issue
Now, if only we knew who made Chrome and YouTube… The mind boggles.
barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 11 months ago
thanevim@kbin.social 11 months ago
Alphabet's monopoly is bad, make no mistake.
But they aren't controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma' bell and pa' bell days.
n2burns@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.
Google controls over 90% of the search business in the US and that’s the way the vast majority of people begin their browsing. It’s why US v Google is currently in the courts
Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev 11 months ago
MS vs US back in the 90’s did not result in anything significant. This pretty much will happen again with Google. Some lobbyists will just do their thing, some minor slaps in the wrist and concessments between DoJ and Alohabet etc and Google will continue to Googling around.
barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Adsense is literally 90% of the market. Let alone android…
theneverfox@pawb.social 11 months ago
Uh… Gmail, Ad sense, search?
They’ve got like a dozen duopolies going on, they have far more control and ability to leverage it than Bell ever did
iAmTheTot@kbin.social 11 months ago
Also, that does not explain why:
Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issueI am a Firefox user who uses adblock and I don't get the issue.
takeda@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I think uBlock might already be blocking that code.
ours@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I was getting the delay early yesterday and then it went away. I guess they must have done something in uBO.
iAmTheTot@kbin.social 11 months ago
Just turned it off. No difference.
Interstellar_1@pawb.social 11 months ago
YouTube rolls features out in waves
seathru@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Same here. Firefox, ublock origin, privacy badger. Videos start playing in under 2 seconds. I’ve also never got the adblock warning.
Lucky I guess.
SlippyCliff76@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They just haven’t rolled it out to you yet.
tiredofsametab@kbin.social 11 months ago
I know several websites consider firefox's built-in privacy settings an adblocker in certain configurations. I get notices on many sites and use no adblocker. Not sure if it's the case here.
Ilgaz@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Chrome sends every single website you visit to Google. You already pay with your privacy.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 11 months ago
Supposedly Firefox users spoofing the Chrome user agent don’t get the issue because the script tries to execute the 5s delay in a way that works on Chrome but not on FF. Because the Chrome method doesn’t work on FF, it just gets skipped entirely. But I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate, just read about it.
Liquid_Fire@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But then shouldn’t there be a delay when using actual Chrome?
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 11 months ago
There’s people reporting exactly that if they’re using certain ad-blocking tools.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
My understanding is the method they can use on chrome is near instant, but the alternative they use on Firefox is slower, hence the delay. Is this BS? Yeah probably, but it does at least logically follow.
AA5B@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It could be as simple as for Chrome assuming there is a certain API, while for Firefox, give it a try and assume no if no response in 5sec
SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 11 months ago
I did see Chrome users mention a delay (on lemmy) but I haven’t personally checked it out
casmael@lemm.ee 11 months ago
What do you mean by change user agent to chrome? Asking 4 a friend
chaogomu@kbin.social 11 months ago
For a specific how to, there's a bunch of firefox addons that do it, but the mozilla recommended one is this
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-string-switcher/
It's super easy to use, just open it and it gives a bunch of options.
This is my current (fake) user agent;
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
With two or three clicks, this is my new (fake) user agent;
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
A few more clicks;
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; HLK-AL00) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.102 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/104.0.1293.70
And finally;
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3; Trident/6.0)
Now, that last one is making it look like I'm using internet explorer... Youtube videos will not load with that last one active. Claims my browser is too old and not supported.
I don't know why they all start with Mozilla/5.0 but the apparently a lot of websites will block your requests if you don't have it (or a valid browser strings like it?)
redcalcium@lemmy.institute 11 months ago
Just a reminder to not use user agent switcher unless it’s absolutely necessary, and if you do, limit it only for certain sites that need it. If enough people change their user agent, website operators will be like “See, no one use Firefox anymore. We shouldn’t bother to support it anymore”.
takeda@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I don’t know why they all start with Mozilla/5.0 but the apparently a lot of websites will block your requests if you don’t have it (or a valid browser strings like it?)
This is a good summary of this mess: webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I personally like seeing Mozilla loud and proud in all the user agents.
It’s a mess, but also an echo of history.
thanevim@kbin.social 11 months ago
When you browse to a website, your browser passes info about itself to the server hosting that site. This info is intended to help the server provide the best rendering code for your browser. This is called your User Agent.
However, Google is using it here to identify Firefox users, and is apparently choosing to lump them all in a box called "adblock users" instead of trying to identify an ad blocker more accurately.
Serinus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If you do change your user agent, I would use an extension that does it only on YouTube domains.
We want independent metrics to show rising Firefox use, not falling.
casmael@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Yeah cool I’ll have a look. Any extensions spring to mind?
Norgur@kbin.social 11 months ago
That's because they may use code to detect as blockers that is not legal in the EU.
otter@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
To add on
You can spoof this user agent to see if a website does something shady depending on which browser you’re using.
So if you keep all other variables the same, and just toggle the user agent value, YouTube behaves differently
FaceDeer@kbin.social 11 months ago
Given that Google's been talking about switching Chrome to a new plugin format that would limit the ability of adblockers to function on Chrome, and given that Google owns Youtube and profits from the ads Youtube displays...
Nope, I'm not connecting the dots. Not sure why Google would be wanting people switch from Firefox to Chrome at this time.
ElleChaise@kbin.social 11 months ago
It's more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits. That's more than enough info to assume they're going to go to war in the near future (now) with them.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They’ve always been at war with ad blockers. It’s just most major multinationals have matured or diversified to a point where they are functional monopolies, and no longer gain any value in competition or service improvement.
At this stage of the merger and consolidation phase of global capitalism, with captured governments that won’t dare break them up or fine them more than a meek virtue signal, the most cost effective way to satiate the infinite growth of capitalism is to increase the exploitation and value extraction of their existing user base as much as possible (aka enshittification).
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Concluding implicitly: “… and therefore a threat to all your computers’ security” :-)
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Sounds like the single best reason to use one.
dalekcaan@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Dear God, won’t anyone think of the shareholders?
ButtDrugs@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Just for clarity, they already switched protocols (Manifest v3), they just have continued to support the old format (v2) that allows unlock origin to work. They are discontinuing support for v2 next year.
flappy@lemm.ee 11 months ago
What really pisses me off is that mv3 is becoming a standard that Vivaldi, Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc. will use.
Matth78@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Mind you that Firefox will adjust it to be able to fully support ad blocker.
Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 11 months ago
You’re not sure why Google would want people switching to the browser that it maintains?
Voyajer@lemmy.world 11 months ago
C’mon man not everything needs a /S
Evkob@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
(They’re being sarcastic)