Is this correct? If so, this is not acceptable.
Edit: Replies to this thread indicate this is not fully correct as it exists on all browsers; and is likely an ad thing.
You are viewing a single comment
Edit: Replies to this thread indicate this is not fully correct as it exists on all browsers; and is likely an ad thing.
In the demo I saw they did an agent spoofing to Chrome and the delay went away, but it didn’t look very extensively tested. As others said, the disappearance on reload could easily be because they thought he was returning to the page and had already seen the ad/been punished for not seeing the ad and so something ad-related disappeared instead.
Iirc the thing is it loads a different js file when it detects chrome which doesn't have the 5s delay. The reasoning is this is part of some anti adblocker code and chrome didn't need the extra logic.
The code is still present when spoofing the user agent or even using a freshly installed chrome. The demo video loafing faster after spoofing can be due to many different reasons.
If you want a better break down of what the code could be used for, this guy foes a good job: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/
So it's got nothing to do with Firefox it's to do with preventing and blocking so it'll happen on Chrome as well.
Well chrome doesn't need the 5s delay.
Chrome doesn't need a 5 second delay to implement ad blocking, or Chrome doesn't need a five second delay because it's Chrome?
Does an important difference here because one is anti-competitive and the other isn't.