YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users
(www.androidauthority.com)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 2023 18:00
https://lemmy.world/post/8527053
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 20 Nov 2023 18:00
https://lemmy.world/post/8527053
YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users::Users are reporting that YouTube has begun adding a five second delay when loading a video on non-Chrome browsers like Firefox. Read on!
threaded - newest
If YouTube really wanted to piss people off, all they would have to do is play the audio out of sync with the video. ;) I know, I know, “don’t give them ideas!”
Oh I’m sure with the lugnuts running the place they’ve thought of that already and have it on the backburner. They just haven’t figured out a way to pin it on a “glitch” yet.
That’s an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen
Time to break Google up so they can buy all the companies the government forced them to sale!
.
F that
Time to spoof the user agent?
Nah, just be patient and wait the 5s. They are trying to create an artificial problem to try to make users switch to their garbage Chrome browser. When they see that Firefox users are smarter and don’t give a shit about their stupid tactics, or even better, use different apps like FreeTube to see the videos, they will stop. Either that or destroy the platform.
I wait the 5 secs, don’t bother me at all. It’s not like they are an ad… :D
.
Nah, wouldn’t want to contribute to Chrome market share.
No, that just sweeps the issue under the rug.
I wouldn’t put it past them, but I think it needs more evidence.
Try spoofing your user agent and see if it improves.
Is anyone even able to reproduce the issue? It cannot be improved if you can’t reproduce it in the first place.
fun fact, i had been noticing this for over a week or two already, today, after the first posts about this were gaining traction it stopped. They are probably trying to erase their tracks and make it seem like something that only happened to a few people for an unrelated reason.
Or they do A\B testing and you fell from your initial group. Due to the nature of this lag, it’s hard to confirm without internal leaks or investigation. At least, it got reported.
I also noticed it. Put it down to my sometimes flakey wifi. But this makes more sense. What a bunch of babies.
So that’s why YouTube seemed to act weird. I thought my wi-fi was dying
i felt like this has been a thing since like 10 years ago. with 100 mbps connection yt would always struggle to buffer in ff
Wow yeah. The delays have stopped on my end as well today.
yt-[tab-tab] (paste)
I’ve noticed that when I open a video in a new tab instead of just left-clicking it. Slightly annoying but better than ads and using chrome.
Why does this sub allow duplicate posts?
The video in the article does not clear caches before retrying and seeing a faster load. Amateur hour.
They actually found a 5-second sleep embedded in the JavaScript, so it’s not the cache.
Depends, in the original Reddit thread, someone already pointed out that this 5s delay is to wait for some ad thing and then execute code if it doesn’t work within this timeframe. So… depending on what gets cached, blocked, loaded,… it might behave differently on a reload depending on cached data
They found something which waits for five seconds and then does something. At least part of the thing in question was removing some stuff from the DOM - I couldn’t understand anything else from the minified JS. That is not a smoking gun.
Here’s a reason why net neutrality laws are good
Seriously, someone needs to report this to the FCC since they just re-adopted Net Neutrality.
not defending the behavior, but is this even an example of net neutrality? it’s not like ISPs are putting a slow lane for specific browsers in this case. it seems more like a shitty dark pattern type thing (which should have consumer protections as well)
It could still be argued as net neutrality, because the browser with the largest market share is slowing down bits on their way to a different browser when it comes to their video service.
It also should be viewed negatively through an anti-competitive/monopolization lens.
If the internet is truly and open platform where no bits are treated differently on the path to the user based on their content, then this is inherently antithetical to that. Slowing down bits because you don’t like whats in them or where they are going is fundamentally breaking Net Neutrality rules. The interruption of bits on their path is what makes it a Net Neutrality issue.
correct me if I’m wrong but I thought net neutrality by definition was the ISPs doing these shenanigans. at least that’s what I gathered when the whole topic was blowing up with that guy with the face we all up voted on Reddit so he’d show up on Google Images under “punchable faces” or something.
I agree this is an anti-competitive tactic. that’s what I was referring to as it being a shitty dark pattern thing - to lure people into using their tools.
It’s about prioritization of data, which can be through ISPs, but in this case, it’s Google choosing to prioritize or deprioritize data.
I understand, yes, that’s its generally aimed at ISPs, but this is an example of a non-ISP using data-shaping to impact use of their service.
it seems quite by definition that ISP are what it’s about though
the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. -Oxford Dictionary
Net neutrality is the principle that an ISP has to provide access to all sites, content, and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions, without blocking or giving preference to any content. -Wikipedia
Network neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services - EFF
Net neutrality, principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should not discriminate among providers of content. -Britannica
The fact that its an oversight to not apply it to companies like Google if they are also choosing what traffic gets to people is an oversight, to be sure.
Google acts as an ISP in a different capacity, as well. Alphabet spun off lots of parts of the company, but last I checked, they’re still technically an ISP. So why wouldn’t rules apply to a business that is also literally an ISP with Google Fiber?
Google is not an ISP lol not when we’re talking about YT
Google Fiber doesn’t exist?
hit post too fast but we’re talking YT here. this isn’t going through their ISP. it literally does not count. if Google fiber added the slow lane, sure net neutrality problem.
also, it’s not an “oversight”. we’re just literally not talking about net neutrality here and that’s what I’m saying. this isn’t a net neutrality problem lol
And up until a few months ago Net Neutrality was a dead issue in America, and could be again, because it isn’t a law, it’s an FCC rule. If people report this to the FCC, there’s definitely a chance that they could look at this and amend NN rules to account for it. They can literally change it anytime they want.
bro just admit you got the definition wrong and stop with this please. idc if it should be. it’s not. by definition.
Fine, I got it wrong. Happy? I still think its a fucking joke that it wouldn’t apply in this instance, because it literally involves them degrading service for certain users over others.
yes, actually! its a positive thing when people can admit that. I was just getting frustrated that you were beating around the bush when you were wrong. look, I, too, believe in net neutrality and companies not being anti competive dick holes, but we gotta use the right words for things or else people start mixing issues up and it weakens the issue as a whole when people start confusing it with other things.
I disagree because language is imperfect and everyone has their own connotations for words and ideas, no matter what you do. You can’t unmake that part of humanity, where certain words and ideas make us feel things. I think the focus on “words of the law” over “spirit of the law” is how America has turned into a fucking shithole by letting every scumfuck get away with stuff that’s “within the letter of the law” because people stopped giving a fucking shit about the “spirit of the law.” In some countries, they don’t go by specific wording, but do go with the spirit of the law. That matters. Also, let’s not even get into how language evolves and the idea that it is in any way static is a real big joke.
So good that you’re happy, and I think the focus on “the right words” is absurd. We’re literally facing rising fascism from people who abuse words.
EDIT: Amazon gained its market position because monopoly law doesn’t account for a business that builds its monopoly through not making a profit for nearly 15 years. Amazon is now even bigger than Walmart when it comes to sales, and absolutely dominates the market, but because the letter of the law didn’t expect a company to run on growth and losing money until it was large enough to dominate, nothing was done until they were already in a monopoly position. Using “clear words” left a gaping fucking hole for that shit to happen.
okay, but we’re talking about net neutrality and how you got it wrong. it’s not about how strict I’m interpreting things or not. there’s no ambiguity in the definition here. you are NOT talking about net neutrality. it indeed does matter whether or not you’re using the right words here because you’re using them wrong. you can’t say apple is an orange, then when people say it’s not the same, you can’t say: well… it’s in the spirit of an apple because it’s a fruit. we’re not talking linguistics here either. you’re continuing to beat around the bush. you’re using some no true Scottsman fallacy here. you can’t say the true definition of something should include something that’s not in the definition just because you’re wrong. that’s not an argument.
I already agreed that I made a mistake.
You made a new argument about the use of words, I refuted it, not in relation to the original argument. I apologize if I was not clear on that.
Anti-trust laws should handle it. Google is using their market power to push users from their competition to their product. It’s pretty basic anti-competition behavior that is covered by classic consumer protection laws. I don’t think there’s any reason why net-neutrality would be needed or apply in this case.
We still need net-neutrality, just not for this reason.
Petty Alphabet…petty. Do you not have a killer AI coming? What does YouTube even matter in the face of what is coming. Do you really have competitive AI?
This is not Firefox specific. It’s another anti ad blocker technique they’re trying.
Wait, so their solution to people using adblock is to add a 5sec delay to everyone’s videos?
To anyone using an ad blocker it would appear. Not saying it’s right, just trying to correct misinformation.
Everyone not on chrome/chromium based browser it seems. Get everyone to switch to chrome then remove chrome’s ability to block ads I assume is the plan, though I doubt anyone using Firefox isn’t aware of chrome and this is likely to push them further away, not towards it.
They also restrict subscriptions to one account if you buy anything on the playstore. Subscriptions which aren’t restricted by their creators. Google has become a full shitshow. I’ll take care to give them 0$ from now on.
.
Friendly reminder you can watch YouTube videos in VLC (I have not tested whether speed is affected this way)
I’m pretty sure it takes more effort, if not also time, to copy URL into VLC every time i find a video.
It’s about the principle lol
Ah, spite, one of my favourite motivators. Carry on.
The article gives the game away. Just change your user agent and you’re golden.