this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
2627 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59201 readers
2829 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voltage@slrpnk.net 524 points 11 months ago (34 children)

The fuck?? Isn’t this anti competitive behaviour?

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 333 points 11 months ago (2 children)

In a previous generation, governments would go after this blatant anti competitive behaviour.

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 223 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm sure the EU will still.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 158 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It’s just a shame that there’s really only one government organization globally that will still stand up to corporations.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To be fair China will send you to a reeducation camp or disappear you if you try to act like a western billionaire.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

China will make you disappear for many things including speaking up against the genocide of religious minorities ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rchive@lemm.ee 40 points 11 months ago (4 children)

The current US Federal Trade Commission is quite agressive compared to other FTCs historically.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] micka190@lemmy.world 135 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

Some people are reporting it happens when your accounts get flagged by YouTube for blocking ads and that using a private browsing session can be used to bypass it, so it's possible this isn't a blanket thing?

Either way, they can go fuck themselves.

If you're on Firefox and using uBlock Origin (which you should), you can add the following to your filters list to essentially disable the delay:

! Bypass 5 seconds delay added by YouTube
www.youtube.com##+js(nano-stb, resolve(1), 5000, 0.001)

It doesn't fully disable it, just makes it almost instant, because Google has been doing shit like looking at what gets blocked to combat ad blockers recently.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] vxx@lemmy.world 57 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Do you want to hear about the Microsoft "bug" that affected Firefox that was only recently fixed after 5+ years of getting reported?

Corporations really hate non-profit products that are superior.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] scholar@lemmy.world 380 points 11 months ago (6 children)

It's bizarre how blatent this is. Google has so much power over web standards that Mozilla have to work really hard to make firefox work, but YouTube don't bother being subtle or clever and just write 'if Firefox, get stuffed' in plain text for everyone to see.

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 70 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Google has been doing this kind of thing for a while. If you try to use Google Meet in Firefox, you can’t use things like background blurring. Spoofing Chrome works in that situation as well.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rinox@feddit.it 284 points 11 months ago (6 children)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 136 points 11 months ago (4 children)

So this is part of a larger adblock checker, if the ad doesn't load within 5 seconds, it fails and triggers the adblocker warning. Since the ad should load in 3, they've set it for 5. If you have ubo, you won't see the warning that it then wants to pop up, it just seems (and is) a 5 second delay. Changing the UA probably removes this from Firefox because then the clientside scripts will attempt to use builtin Chrome functions that wouldn't need this hacky script to detect the adblock. Since they don't exist, it just carries on.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Meltrax@lemmy.world 102 points 11 months ago (9 children)

This is some ultimate scumbaggery.

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 94 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This should be illegal, Firefox being their competition (tangentially)

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

EU might hit them for it. I have no faith that the US government is going to do anything.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world 252 points 11 months ago (3 children)

This is why net neutrality is important. To prevent bullshit like this from happening.

[–] steltek@lemm.ee 48 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's not what net neutrality is about. NN is about carriers and ISPs treating all services and websites equally. Don't feature creep NN. It weakens the arguments for why why we need NN.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 212 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Doesn't this break competition laws?
Couldn't Google/YouTube be sued over this?

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Not in the U.S. Not as long as conservatives (incl. neo-liberals) have the power to protect them.

Our conservative politicians are bought and paid for by large anti-competitive corporations.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PrairieRanger@lemmy.world 209 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I wonder how long it'll be before google gets sued for their anti-competitive behavior.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 114 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Oh I imagine the papers are being filed as we speak, because this is blatantly illegal.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 36 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Well you typically need standing in order to file a lawsuit, who would do it? Mozilla are probably the only ones. Why would this cause them to do it when past similar practices haven’t?

[–] Dulusa@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

Europe will step in as usual

[–] pup_atlas@pawb.social 42 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps YouTube premium subscribers would have standing as a class action, since Google is materially worsening the experience of a paid product if you don’t use their browser

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 173 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's an antitrust case if ever I saw one.

[–] bruhduh@lemmy.world 57 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

EU be like: aw shit here we go again

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pastaPersona@lemmy.world 117 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Sometimes I get curious about chromium based browsers and consider giving them a shot for a while.

Then Google does shit like this and I keep mainlining Firefox out of spite. Half the reasons people experience “issues” with Firefox are just dumb garbage like this (see sites / web content being developed with Chrome-based in mind)

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 56 points 11 months ago (5 children)

the website DRM thing is one of the most blackpilled and evil uses of technology i've ever seen

the people in charge of developing that should be put in a padded room and never allowed to see sunlight again. fucking god.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 104 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Google has been doing this kind of thing for years, to strangle their competition. For example, back when Windows Phone existed, Google went deliberately out of their way to cripple youTube, and maps. Apparently google will do anything they can to create lock-in and faux loyalty.

Google are completely evil. Here we're talking about them using their popular products as weapons against competitors in unrelated areas. But also have a history of copying products made by others then using advertising strength to promote their version over the original. And if that somehow doesn't work... they buy out the competitors. Both youTube and google maps are examples of this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 79 points 11 months ago (17 children)

"Do no evil^1^"

^1^ unless we can make money from it.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 78 points 11 months ago (20 children)

Let's remember, fellas, that big tech is not a disease that needs to be eradicated. Let us not forget that Google is a legitimate corporation, not merely a group of professional stalkers. And let's be clear: obviously you are the crazy ones for worrying about this, naturally...

Pardon my jest; I was merely echoing the absurdities often heard.

Maybe just maybe it's time we stop with this garbage and actually stop using their services. Nothing will change if we keep using their services.

The most direct and effective strategy to inspire reform in their practices is to stop using of their platforms. Each time we use a service from Google or any similar big tech entity, we inadvertently endorse their methods.

YOU hold the power to change them by using FOSS alternatives instead.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The most direct and effective strategy to inspire reform in their practices is to stop using of their platforms.

The whole "the free market could fix it" is just neoliberal bullshit. The most hated companies in the world continue to bring in record profits and its not because people prefer their chocolate is harvested by child slaves.

They're fully aware that it never works, but they just keep suggesting it over and over again, growing richer with successive failure, all the while blaming consumers for not preventing them doing sleazy, greedy things.

The actual most direct and effective strategy is regulations. That's why they hate them and why there are so many of them in politics.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] rdri@lemmy.world 76 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

Did someone actually investigate and find the exact place in scripts where this logic takes place?

EDIT: Yes. https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-down-videos-firefox-3387206/

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Delta_V@midwest.social 71 points 11 months ago

Adding this to your uBlock Origin filters also makes the problem go away:

www.youtube.com##+js(nano-stb, resolve(1), *, 0.001)

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Not noticing this change from the EU... Guess they're too afraid of pulling that shit here?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago (11 children)

imagine sitting down to code this and thinking you're doing the right thing

you should be able to whisteblow clearly evil technology and have some sort of economic safety net

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 49 points 11 months ago (13 children)

Gmail is almost painfully slow on my PC (I use Adblock on Firefox). Does anyone else experience this?

And, yes, I know Gmail is very bad, you're preaching to the choir. I am in the midst of switching over.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I really hope they try this in the EU. The EU regulatory agencies have been on a roll lately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml 47 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Bet it's done in such a way that they can claim "We're just optimizing for Chrome, not slowing down any competitors. It's not our fault our competitors don't using our web engine for their browsers."

I mentioned similar shading behavior on another post, when using Firefox with Chrome or native user agents on the plain old Google search page.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

It's apparently not even subtle enough to make that claim, it checks the useragent and sleeps for 5 seconds if it's not Chrome.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

Yeah, user agent switch to chrome made YouTube vid instantly load. Real shitty google!

[–] nfsu2@feddit.cl 40 points 11 months ago (3 children)

They are really the worst scumbags ever. They want world domination.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MurdoMaclachlan@lemmy.world 40 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Ah, I was wondering why YouTube was taking so long to load recently. I thought it was just because their code was shit, and it turns out I was right, but not in the way I thought.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Smacks@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They do the same shit for Google search results. Search weather or stock tickers with a Chrome user agent* and you get a rich, interactive chart of the weather forecast or stock history. Search with another mobile user agent and you get a static snapshot of the weather or stock price at an instant in time.

There's even an extension for Firefox for Android which changes the user agent for Google searches to Chrome, to get the rich content.

* just a user agent, not an actual browser, which proves that it isn't about browser capability, but rather abusing their monopolistic market position in search to further their web browser's market share. Sound familiar, Microsoft from the 90's?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›