YouTube Says New 5-Second Video Load Delay Is Supposed to Punish Ad Blockers, Not Firefox Users

stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to Technology@lemmy.world – 1670 points –
YouTube Says New 5-Second Video Load Delay Is Supposed to Punish Ad Blockers, Not Firefox Users
404media.co

Firefox users are reporting an 'artificial' load time on YouTube videos. YouTube says it's part of a plan to make people who use adblockers "experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using."

402

"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.

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.

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.

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).

their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.

Concluding implicitly: "... and therefore a threat to all your computers' security" :-)

Itโ€™s more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.

Sounds like the single best reason to use one.

Dear God, won't anyone think of the shareholders?

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.

What really pisses me off is that mv3 is becoming a standard that Vivaldi, Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc. will use.

Mind you that Firefox will adjust it to be able to fully support ad blocker.

3 more...

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.

7 more...

Also, that does not explain why:

Chrome users who use an adblocker donโ€™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, donโ€™t get the issue

I am a Firefox user who uses adblock and I don't get the issue.

I think uBlock might already be blocking that code.

I was getting the delay early yesterday and then it went away. I guess they must have done something in uBO.

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.

Chrome sends every single website you visit to Google. You already pay with your privacy.

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.

What do you mean by change user agent to chrome? Asking 4 a friend

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?)

Almost all user agent strings start with that Mozilla prefix because Mozilla made the first browser with "fancy" features, so in the early internet many websites checked for that string to determine if they should serve the nice website or the stripped down version. Later when other browsers added the features, that also had to add that to their user string so users would get the right site. Which just cemented the practice.

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".

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: https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/

I personally like seeing Mozilla loud and proud in all the user agents.

It's a mess, but also an echo of history.

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.

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.

Yeah cool Iโ€™ll have a look. Any extensions spring to mind?

That's because they may use code to detect as blockers that is not legal in the EU, so they might have thought that they're super crafty and used markers such as user agent for their cool coercion delay code thingy

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

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

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.

3 more...
15 more...

The degree in which corporations engage in psychological warfare against customers is astounding. Not surprising, just outrageous. Don't want notifications on? We're going to ask you to turn on notifications in the the program every single day until you do it. Don't want to watch ads because our infinite greed has destroyed what used to be a good platform with a reasonable number of ads before we bought it? Then we'll make the experience less pleasant until you comply. They already make multiple parts of YouTube disagree with ad blockers on purpose to break the sites features. Not that I use anything other than NewPipe and Piped anymore anyway. I'm just sick of shitty corporations acting like we're children who can be punished.

We are in a war indeed.

I think itโ€™s a new trend with CEOs and investors. They want infinite growth so the strategy is aquire / create, grow, squeeze, throw away, while creating new products to migrate fed up customers. Rinse and repeat.

Investors goal: maximize ROI this year.

CEO goal: infinite growth and/or increase share price to keep funds flowing.

I believe the current economic behavior isnโ€™t sustainable. Some day things will go south.

I actually think they are currently all going south. This increase in ads is just one part of the fall I think.

Id say the last stage of squeeze might be more accurate.

Because itโ€™s possible to recover now.

Once the majority of big corps reach the no return stage, weโ€™re all screwed.

The idea that the only real duty of corporate leadership is to drive shareholder profit is apocalyptically naive and ultimately nihilistic, and it has been since the words dribbled from Milton Friedman into the NYT magazine back in 1970.

2 more...

Infinite growth in a finite world is impossible.

Do we need to start requiring all C-suite managers to learn thermodynamics?

They know, they just wanna accumulate as much fat bonuses as possible before the crash.

I think itโ€™s a new trend with CEOs and investors. They want infinite growth so the strategy is aquire / create, grow, squeeze, throw away, while creating new products to migrate fed up customers. Rinse and repeat.

This is it and there's another wrinkle driving it IMO which is the end of QE. When rates were at sub-inflation (so basically negative) and investor capital was everywhere, none of these companies really cared about milking the customers because they were already fat and happy milking the government indirectly. Now the government cheese machine has dried up and so now we've gotta get the stock price up a quarter of a point by any means necessary instead.

2 more...

It's literally like that shit from Ready Player One where the guy suggests that you can fill up the VR screen with like 80% ads before the user gets sick from it. That's what they are doing now, they will push ads until people either stop watching or not enough people subscribe to Premium. The fact that you can't even skip ahead in a video without getting more ads, even if you just got the pre-roll ads. It's completely unacceptable and I think that there should be laws that would prevent that type of consumer abuse.

Don't you just love being fed plausible deniability BS over and over and over again. I've lost friends over this bs. People who always argue in bad faith, always invoke plausible deniability, always min/max each interaction with hidden motives - should be given no attention and credibility. Unfortunately, those people strives in corporate environments, and as you would expect, they're often responsible for marketing, PR, sales, and corporate strategies. Corporations are the annoying lying friends you don't want around.

YouTube didn't have ads before it got bought IIRC, not that it would have lasted that way even if it was not bought

3 more...
5 more...

I'd still prefer to wait 5 seconds than have to watch a fucking sanitized corporate advertisement trying to sell me bullshit I don't want and won't buy with annoying fucking music, voiceover, and footage of people pretending to be happy.

Fuck off, Google. Good thing this will be easily bypassed anyway.

If it were one ad I might be fine with it, but it's usually 2-3 ads every 5-10 minutes, at a volume twice as loud as the video, and each up to 2 minutes long.

A made the mistake of watching YouTube on my TV a few weeks back, without an ad blocker. I was getting 1-3 15 second ads every 2-3 minutes!

And inserted randomly within the content

8 more...

But wait, wouldn't a 5 second pause on loading still be way better than sitting through minutes of adverts? :-D

Punishment my arse

I'll take a 5 sec delay over ads any fucking day of the week.

5 sec delay

Just now

Next up will be resetting the volume control every video, or limiting the resolutions you can view at.

They already kinda do the resolution thing. Premium gets higher bitrate versions of the videos.

Wouldn't it be neat if YouTube had reasonable competition? You know, so when YouTube adds a five-second delay as a strange style of punishment, a different platform would look more attractive?

There will never be a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else is willing to run at a net loss for a decade before seeing their first profitable quarter, like Google did with YouTube.

Turns out, free video hosting is expensive as fuck.

There will never be a real competitor to YouTube

That sounds reasonable but you're thinking way too small. Lets not forget that Tiktok is already more popular than YouTube with a very, very large chunk of younger people, for example.

But besides that, let's not forget that absolute giants in the business have been toppled. Look at Yahoo! as one example. Hell, even entire countries can fall within a few decades, whole empires.

So, assuming that there will never be a decent YouTube competitor is a very limited way of looking at it. Who's to say Google will still exist in any meaningful market leading way in 20 years?

Sure they're big now, but what if the entire face of the internet and how we use it and what we want fundamentally changes (say with the addition of highly advanced AI that brings changes we can't even predict right now).

There will absolutely one day be a service that can rival YouTube and eventually replace them, it's the same with every product from every business, it's the circle of life I suppose. But whether that will happen within the next 5 years, or 15, or 30, only time can tell :-D

Never say never, though!

TikTok isn't YouTube. It's two different method to consume videos. TikTok doesn't replace YouTube per se. Some people split the available attention time between them and in favor of TikTok.

It will be hard to compete on the YouTube field. But, there is multiple places for a different way to consume video with a different user experience.

On the YouTube field, it will be hard. I don't see creator moving with their community. The same issue has with let say Reddit, Twitter, etc.

1 more...
1 more...

Im surprised Amazon hasnโ€™t stepped into the space to advertise their own products. They already own a huge storage cloud backend.

...i'm surprised pornhub hasn't rolled out an all-ages video site...

6 more...

Maybe. But give decentralised federated hosting a few years. It might never be a rival but it's possible it will become a viable alternative.

If PeerTube can fix their major discoverability issues, it can potentially pose a real threat to YouTube. But that's the biggest thing keeping it back right now, is that it's impossible to just find anything you want to watch.

Unless you want to watch hour-long seminars on Linux. In which case, PeerTube's got you covered.

I think discoverability is in its infancy for the fediverse in general.

But I'm old enough to remember when vast tracts of the internet were hard to find and everyone used directories. When that changed, everyone jumped online.

Yet there is a gazillion of porn sites out there. The thing is, once YouTube become shitty enough its users are itching to find an alternative, porn operators like MindGeek might launch a competitor site because they're already have a scalable video delivery service. I wouldn't be surprised if they're already working on it.

1 more...
8 more...

It's funny too because ads literally are a 5 second delay (at least) that you get when you dont use an adblocker!

I honestly think I prefer the delay over the ad.

Same. Give me the delay. At least I know thatโ€™s only five seconds, as opposed to a ten-second unskippable ad followed by another ad that I can skip after five seconds.

You're absolutely right, but we haven't even touched on the worst part of ads, which is how they utterly poison your brain with annoying jingles, annoying colors, and stupid catch-phrases, all psychologically engineered to get stuck in your head.

And let's not even go into how they prey on your fears and insecurities, or deceive you into thinking you need things that you actually don't. How they prey on vulnerable children, or the elderly, or brainwash small children into manipulating their parents against their best interests. Or how privacy has been shredded since the advent of behavioral tracking.

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that advertising is one of the world's biggest psychological hazards. I would rather sit in an empty room with no stimulation whatsoever than let that poison into my brain.

If I see an unskippable ad, I like to play the game "Roll the dice until Youtube gives up". Hit the refresh key until it gives me the correct video length. Devalues Youtube's ad product and costs YouTube more.

1 more...
1 more...

At some point Hulu did that - just like three, thirty-second blocks of silent 'shame on you for ad blocking!' I totally preferred that to ads...

Now I just don't use Hulu?

1 more...
2 more...
2 more...

I've been using Nebula. It's a subscription-based alternative with no advertising, but I get it for free because I'm subscribed to Curiosity Stream (which is basically Netflix, but for documentaries).

The only downside to Nebula is that there aren't a lot of content creators on it, so you don't have the variety of videos that YouTube offers.

1 more...

I'm still waiting for MindGeek to launch an SFW version of pornhub to compete with YouTube. If YouTube keeps getting shittier, they might eventually do it.

Turns out people don't want to compete with something that runs at a loss. and as soon as someone figures out how Google will just copy them with a massive infrastructure lead.

12 more...

All of the people saying "I'd rather wait five seconds than watch an ad" seem to be optimistic that it will continue to be 5 seconds and YouTube won't keep upping it.

But they can't extend it longer than the shortest ads, since then it'll affect users after they watch ads too, which kinda defeats the point

Exactly, so this still guarantees a better experience than ad viewers because you will always have the minimum ad length

That's not a problem. Just put in longer ads. Or multiple ads in a row.

Or multiple ads in a row.

They aleady do that

Honestly, worst case scenario, if YouTube manages to completely eliminate adblockers, maybe by making some kind of cryptographic system where the browser has to provide a token embedded inside the ad video stream in order to access the video, I would still use an extension to mute sound and draw a black bar over the ads while technically playing them in the background, it's not the wait time that bothers me, it's how repetitive and obnoxious the ads are, I just don't want to perceive them.

Which is why you have to void warranties and go through a lot of hassle to r Unlock the bootloader, or root your own phone and have actual control over it.

And that's the reason Google is trying to push shitty web standards to remove your control.

And why Apple and Microsoft keep restricting your access to your OS, with rumors of Windows 12 being cloud-only.

Many governments around the world don't want you to have any control or privacy. Many tech giants don't want you to have any control or privacy. It's the same old thing religions have done forever. Enforce a lack of control and privacy through violence, social pressure, or resources. Only now, the enforcement style is indirect, trying to say you don't own your device, can't use ad blockers or privacy tools, have to agree to terms and conditions that waive your rights, your usage has to be monitored, or that backdoors have to be built into everything.

Don't expect this behavior to stop unless regulation is created to prevent it, or the company caves to financial or social pressure to change....for now.

Don't expect regulation to be created unless you put people who care about privacy and such in power.

Even then, people in power need to be held accountable if they misbehave, or nothing else matters.

It all comes back to class struggle and politics.

"Which color hat did the extra in the background of your latest ad wear?" Wrong answer = 10 ads.

If they could, YouTube would hire someone to sit on your couch and make sure you consume the ads with your utmost attention.

I'll take 20 minutes of silence over 1 second of ads. I will never willingly watch an ad I didn't explicitly request. Ever.

Life is short and I won't devote any of it to advertisements.

That being said, I do pay for YouTube premium because I do use it a lot and understand that the platform has every right to make money. But that makes what they're doing with Firefox and ad blockers worse.

Ads are psychological abuse. I will not watch them. If YouTube make it too hard to use their service without watching ads, I don't need to use YouTube.

This is why I refuse to pay for YouTube. They are literally actively making the experience worse, rather than trying to make the paid experience better. This is laughable.

15 more...

"supposed to"

Oopsie whoopsy, we accidentally made competing browsers disadvantaged.

Deliberate, disguised as accidental. Disgusting.

Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

This is not only adequately explained by stupidity, but it makes the most logical sense to be explained by stupidity. They are actively fighting a war with AdBlockers. They are trying to block AdBlockers, and AdBlockers are working as quickly as possible to fight those changes. Then Google has to fire back as quickly as possible. This is resulting in rapid published changes to counteract AdBlockers and their retaliation. It makes all too much sense that their fight against AdBlockers did not work as intended. The people making these changes are Google software developers, and I really do not think any of them have an issue with Mozilla.

I don't know how stupid YouTube devs would have to be to:

  • Tie the delay that was supposed to fight AdBlock to user-agent (changing it to chrome fixes the issue)

  • Ignore Youtube Premium users that pay for ad-free experience

For those reasons I think it's pretty safe to say that this goes beyond stupidity and into malice territory.

2 more...

Unless you consider fighting adblockers a futile stupidity, you should first apply Occam's razor - explanation requiring least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one.

In this case spoofing user-agent string of Chrome is enough to fix all the performance issues on Firefox, meaning there is no fancy anti-adblock code or anything like that.

Right, they got caught doing some hot button issue shit with the FCC talking about renewing the NN rules and they didn't want to reignite the debate themselves. Google owns YT. Google makes money on ads, yeah, but they are also dominating the browser game with more people switching to firefox. Both explanations make sense, but only one of them calls for covering up/lying. Also, when any company gets caught doing something that they have some other excuse for, I'm liable to believe the appearance rather than the PR response.

3 more...
6 more...
6 more...

"We know you didn't do anything wrong. We meant to hurt someone else."

Normally this is when I'd go all yar har fiddle dee dee, and don't get me wrong Imma do a lot of that too, but a lot of my favorite video essay nerds are also on a platform called Nebula that's dirt cheap, ad free and owned outright by the people who make the content. It's a good way to balance the whole "people need to get paid for the content they make" thing with the whole "these platforms are predatory and abusive" thing.

Nebula will also sell lifetime subscriptions for $300 occasionally. When you compare it to netflix's standard price of $15.49/month, it pays for itself in less than 2 years.

I admire their mission. Giving the power to the video creators is great. I'm all for coops. But, as a user I find it lacking. If you want to watch anything outside of educational videos and video essays you have to go elsewhere. It doesn't have very good content discovery. I know creators don't like chasing an algorithm, but as a viewer I like having recommendations based on what I watch.

I bought a one year membership, because I support what they are trying to do, but I rarely watch anything on it.

There is no acceptable answer to "why do you make your own services suck?"

Because we need go punish those who have the GALL to not want to have consumerism shoved down their throat 8 times in a 5 minute video.

2 more...
13 more...

I do not think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore, people need to stop using their services.

No one's going to unless someone recreates YouTube, which isn't happening anytime soon.

It's already been recreated (vevo, peertube, etc.) it's just that those services don't have anywhere near the content Youtube has.

Thanks fot saving my time answering for all of us

Sadly, the problem is that the small platforms tend to attract all the scum that was blocked on YT. You know... all the racist anitisemitic nazi conspiracy theory ridden brains.

1 more...

The ad funded model is dying AKA endless free money is dying, it doesn't work because there's no real business there it works based on the empty promise of making money elsewhere on the products they are selling without any guarantee that the advertisement is what's making them the money. The analytics are starting to tell them that it's not as good of an investment as they once thought. Advertisement has become overvalued, that's why people are saying that there is a bubble and that it's going to burst, just like it happened before with the dotcom crash.

In other words a platform like YouTube is already very flawed. Sure you can make alternative video sharing platforms and you can get them by on donations (or maybe even nationalize it in some places) but that money making component for creators isn't something that can be as easily replicated. They can do sponsorships, they can ask for donations, but donations are hardly anything to live by unless you're famous, and sponsorships can have the same problem as the aforementioned over-inflated ad revenue.

1 more...
6 more...

YouTube says it's part of a plan to make people who use adblockers "experience suboptimal viewing"

As opposed to the perfectly optimal experience you get when allowing ads

A 5 second break, while suboptimal, is significantly less suboptimal than having to watch 20+ second ads.

I'd rather a 5 second pause then see something trying to hijack my freewill.

No ads or delays > No ads with delays >>>>>> ads

Honestly, as long as the video itself doesn't have interruptions, I'm okay with the ad-free experience having a small delay or even lower video resolution. I don't have to have 4k 120 FPS video on everything.

What I don't want is constant interruptions, wild changes in emotional tone or volume, obnoxious and manipulative ads, politically sponsored bullshit, or constant pestering to disable my ad blocker and tracking protection. In short, once the video starts, leave me alone.

I can appreciate that Google has spent its entire existence trying to find another revenue stream beyond advertising, and largely failed, but I don't care. If my choices are to continue being manipulated and lied to by companies and politicians paying for the privilege, and not using YouTube, I'll just stop using YouTube. I've done it before with other services I used much more frequently.

Either they shut up about using ad blockers, or they give me an alternative.

And yes, I realize this is a very selfish and entitled response. If I get value out of something that costs other people time and money to provide me, it is fair that I give back in some way. Traditionally, that was done via companies serving ads and spying on its users.

But enough is enough. Modern advertising and tracking keep getting worse, and trying to enforce them is not the way to move forward.

5 second ad delay in blessed silence

5 seconds of someone screaming into my ear "BUY! BUY! BUY!"

Oh, no! Better disable my ad blocker quick!

If you're on desktop and open several videos at once (such as getting home from work/school and opening all the new videos on your subscriptions tab) you really don't notice.

What I do notice are the ads at the beginning, quarters, middle, and end of a video

Ah yes, because ad viewers get to enjoy the video immediately with zero delay whatsoever. You sure showed those adblock using scum by... Still having a better experience with adblock enabled by virtue of only subjecting them to silence instead of an ad while still not making any money.

Even assuming what they're claiming is truely their intention, it's still dumb as hell.

Lol, I'd rather wait 5 seconds than see an ad lol.

Frog, meet boiling water. This is standard play, like adding ads in the first place. First itโ€™s one short, then slightly longer, then two in a row, then interspersedโ€ฆ eventually itโ€™s commercial TV, just one big ad. Give em inch, they take a mile. Advertising shits in your head, donโ€™t let it.

ads can be 30 seconds

Ads can be 15 minutes. Like they're adding goddamn infomercials now.

At least 2-3 times I would get an entire K-pop music video as an ad.

Sure I can be skipped, but it will play when Iโ€™m in the shower listening to a podcast.

I donโ€™t speak Korean or listen to kpop, so itโ€™s weird itโ€™s being advertised to me as Iโ€™m not the target audience.

I've seen more than one hour long ad. It let you skip after 5 seconds, but imagine if someone were leaving it on as background.

1 more...
2 more...
2 more...

Wait 5 seconds and it plays or bombarded with ads that, at best, takes 5 second and an manual action before watching a video?

Yeah, if I wasn't using Freetube on desktop I'm still not watching ads.

2 more...

This is bullshit even being truth lol "is supposed to punish adblockers" such entitlement and normalization.

Honestly, I never bothered to install an ad blocker before today. I just figured ads were tolerable. This move by YouTube got me to switch to firefox and install ublock origin and oh my is it glorious. I can wait 5 seconds for my video to start since I am used to ads anyway.

I hate ads so much that I typically would start a video on YouTube with my phone/PC muted and then put the phone face down or turn off the monitor for ten seconds before going back to the video and rewinding to the start.

2 more...

You can spoof it as Chrome because it's a bias towards other browsers that aren't chrome, regardless of whatever bullshit statements they put out to avoid getting sued or otherwise in trouble.

2 more...

Bro my position is very clear. I'd rather forget about YouTube entirely than let ads back into my life

13 more...

So they will allow ad blockers now? I'll take a five second delay instead of shitty ads.

I'll spoof the user agent because that shit is disgusting.

If it actually targets ad blockers and not FF in particular, that won't do much other than telling all the websites you visit that yet another user is using chrome and not FF.

2 more...

There are other ways to detect FF, but they can almost always be worked around with enough effort.

2 more...
2 more...

Deliberately and actively try to make user experience worst is shit evil. Now im gonna actively share ubo to all people i talk IRL

3 more...

They forced our hands in creating and using adblockers. Remember how awful the web was getting before we could adblock? Pop ups, force play videos with full sound, entire webpages full of ads with a tiny bit of content in the middle.

The funniest part is that the abject uselessness of web ads is well known to the advertisers. They do it anyway, and for so little gain that it's effectively a statistical rounding error. They have no idea what else to do soon they shrug and burn the money anyway because thems the rules of capitalism.

Hmmm, watch an ad or wait five seconds..... Not sure they thought this one out.

At this point i would rather watch an empty wall for a minute than a 10s ad

But... It may alert you to the existence of a game that has a completely different mechanic than the one presented in the ad!

1 more...
1 more...

โ€œPeople say breaking up Alphabet into heavily regulated entities is supposed to benefit the public, not investorsโ€

I don't mind ads, I understand that websites need to finance themselves to cover their costs (and maybe build up some capital to expand). But I do mind tracking, user profiling, personalization / user targeting, trading this data with dubious companies worldwide, and obnoxious ads, for example pop-ups or auto-play videos with a 1 micron sized close button, or a forced timed ad which is hiding the content.

It's like having a bunch of people following you around, taking note of everything you do, evaluating that data, making statistics, dicsussing it with other people you don't know, etc.. Then, when you want to make yourself a sandwich, step in between you and your sandwich, taking up a megaphone and scream into your face : "OH, WE NOTICED THAT YOU ARE MAKING A SANDWICH. CAN WE INTERST YOU IN NEW FANCY BUTTER KNIVES FOR ONLY 59,99 โ‚ฌ?" [Then going on about it for 3 minutes before they are stepping out of your way].

There are laws against that in real life, and in the digital realm this is missing. Considering how much time a lot of people spend online this is something which needs to be taken seriously.

It's really scary sometimes. There was a time when I was stupid enough to use facebook, just to stay in touch with friends. Once I talked with a friend about allergies and asthma, and I told them I have a pollen allergy. A short time later an ad showed up on my facebook feed, advertising some nasal spray for allergies. Wtf?! And that's just the surface. "Harmless" ads. Who knows what else happens with that data?

And then we get stuff like Cambridge Analytica.

Personally, I do mind ads. They exist purely to convince people to buy stuff. In most cases, they are dishonest, or at the very least present the products in a favorable manner that hides flaws people might deserve to know. And even good ads are a distraction from what I actually want to see or do.

I completely agree, ad companies have taken user tracking too far. It is absolutely scary how much ad companies know about my private life, and there's no realistic way to stop them. We really need better legislation.

1 more...

Look up resources on helping someone with an addiction of any sort and watch the avalanche of ads for alcohol and such :( that's one of the darker "harmless" ads I've heard of. It's disgusting.

11 more...

For those that don't want to click on a reddit link:

Credit to u/paintboth1234

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

For those that had no clue where to put this:

Click on uBO icon > โš™ Dashboard button > Add the filter(s) in "My filters" pane > โœ“ Apply changes > Open new tab and test again.

Google lived long enough to become the villain.

Old news, they've been the villain for much longer than you think

When they were allowed to buy YouTube because their Google Video couldn't compete was the turning point.

Remember when they forced everyone with a Google service account (Youtube, gmail, etc.) to automatically have an account on their attempted social media site? What was it called, circles or something? I think they saw it was failing and tied everyone with a Google account to the social site in an attempt to make it look like the social site actually had members. The problem was that, still, nobody used it and what use it it to have millions on inactive users on a social media platform.?

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

5 seconds of silence vs 30+ seconds of ads. Tough choice Google, tough choice.

Trying to monetise the fraction of a percent of users who actively avoid your advertising and wouldn't engage with it or purchase products from the advertisers even if forced to watch them is the epitome of corporate greed. Pathetic, money grubbing billionaire corporations deserve to burn to the ground rather than be supported by the societies they leech off like the cancer they are.

8 more...

I feel like the explanation follows a thread of believability, but even then, this feature was terribly coded if it was circumvented via User Agent string manipulation.

I don't believe that ad blockers modify the user agent, so if you can modify the user agent of FF to emulate Chrome and solve the issue, then that means Chrome users that use ad blockers don't have to deal with the delay and therefore their claim that they aren't punishing FF users his utter horse shit.

I was under the impression Chrome doesn't let you use ad blockers anymore? idk I use arch firefox btw

I thought Chrome was planning to oust ad blockers in 2024. Idk if that's true though, maybe I'm mis-remembering.

I've kinda stuck with Firefox for many years now because I never saw any reason not too. I honestly hardly ever used extensions though (except ad blockers), so maybe there's something I don't understand about any downfalls of Firefox. I just don't see any, especially nowadays. It just works for me, so I never fully switched.

I've tried other browsers, but I just come back to Firefox ever time. It's a comfort at this point

That's already been confirmed to be bullshit....And what I mean by that is that youtube's claim is bullshit.

I wish I could make YouTube "experience suboptimal revenue" in retaliation, but sadly I can't block more than 100% of ads.

You can use Adnauseum, silently/invisibly clicks on every ad as well as hiding them so that the ads get worthless data, your info is drowned out with false stuff (there's a term but I blanked on it), hurts ads

Edit: Will disclose I don't use it as though it's based on uBO it's worse and on the libgen.li book piracy websites uBO lets me actually download a book while Adnauseum doesn't let me

lol, I take back the snark I gave in another thread the other day about Google doing this to fuck with people now. Egg on my face for giving them the benefit of the doubt.

They can't honestly think this will have the desired effect. I also bet the poor sod that had to implement it "strongly advised not to do it". But was over ruled by some know it all shit head MBA.

they're so shockingly inept, i can't believe it anymore

I don't believe this instance of anticompetitive behavior was an accident either. They just thought while doing it for ad blockers, might as through in the competition in the net too. They just got caught. Now they can plausible claim it was an accident.

Like much of big tech, they are too big. This makes also being anticompetitive just too easy to resist.

This is hillarious! I didn't even notice that. YT always delayed video loading a little. Is this really a change?

Yeah it really just looked like the normal shitty youtube connection you get when their servers get a wee bit overloaded.

I haven't noticed any delay in Firefox. I have noticed that the ui fails to load sometimes. Video works just fine, but there's nothing else on the page. So hey, Google, if you could keep that up that'd be great.

from what i've understood, they are selectively pushing it out, like they did with the adblock blocking shit.

So not everyone is getting hit by it.

4 more...
4 more...
4 more...

Huh, I just thought youtube was running slow. Still better than ads.

Extensions like "agent spoofer" allow you to customize the details of what your browser reports to the web page.

Personally on my home pc, I'm using a galaxy s21 with the netscape browser

I find the use of having Firefox pretending to be Netscape like using your parent's ID to buy liquor underage. Too funny!

2 more...
2 more...

I don't understand why companies still place ads on youtube. I've never ever bought a product or visited a company's website which was advertised on youtube.

Are there really people who listen to youtube ads?

Absolutely. I've participated in several campaigns that resulted in ~20% increases in sales for targeted ads. It makes a difference.

Sadly.

1 more...

Yes, it's the same people that don't install ad blockers.

2 more...

make people who use adblockers โ€œexperience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using.โ€

The sad thing is, I consider this an upgrade. I'll take a moment to breathe and maybe break out of the negative spiral that is modern internet use.

It's like when a teacher can't target the bad kid so they punish the whole class instead.

GrayJay is still working pretty good. I cannot use the YouTube app, or mobile browsers because most of the content I'm interested in isn't highly visual so I like to turn my screen off and listen. I am ok with a reasonable amount of ads but the anti-feature of background play disabled without premium is just stupid.

Google's modus operandi - business as usual. Deploying their dirty tricks on their mass of servers to edge out and destroy competition. When caught out they apologize all surprised Pikachu style, then do it again differently. This is likely in response to news about Firefox mobile finally allowing extensions to work. People are probably trying it out, but their Youtube experience will be crap, so they'll go back to chrome.

Whatever you say Google. Hey EU, Google wants to chat with you.

Isn't it weird that EU, famous for being so fragmented that they can't decide on common interior or foreign policy, all while being ridiculed for their large and inefficient bureaucracy, still is the sole entity that manages to stand up to mega corporations?

And those are sometimes fights that have zero benefit to a different wealthy elite, but actually protect citizen liberties.

I shudder to think how the world would look like if EU had not established and enforced the GDPR as well as it does. Consumer protection is probably one of the only fields where the EU had a global positive impact.

I feel like all the people running Firefox (most of my friends/family and many colleagues) are just going to say โ€œdamn, YouTube sucks. I should look elsewhereโ€ and not โ€œoh, it must be slow because Iโ€™m not on chrome.โ€ Heck my parents donโ€™t even know what chrome is.

1 more...

when are they gonna learn that any client-side restriction or hindrance can and will be defeated? sleep(5000) is kinda like them throwing a fit, not actually trying to punish anyone. obviously we'll find a way to avoid waiting the 5s, do they think we'll just give up?

3 more...

Oh wow, I just opened lemmy because a YouTube video was taking extra time to open in Firefox lol.

This delay has happened on Brave browser too, it's not FF specific. But it's pathetic either way.

I mean, if they really wanted to show you ads, they could just switch the returned stream when the video player calls for certain chunk, then when that ad is done playing, switch back to the original stream. The user experience would be basically like watching TV.

1 more...

I haven't noticed this in the browser, but I've definitely noticed it using the YouTube app on Roku. No Firefox or ad blocker there.

I don't know if it makes a difference, but I'm in Canada and I've noticed none of this. No video load delays, no anti ad-blocker pop ups, none of it. I'm not going to stop using Firefox or Ublock Origin though.

It could be that Google is releasing this incrementally. It seems a bit random who gets it and who doesn't

1 more...

I will never again use Chrome again (well maybe except YouTube if stops working in non-chromium-based browsers), we need to get Web back into our hands! It is sad that it took me too many years to realize that, I hope others will follow.

It was only a month or two ago when I didn't believe I could make firefox my primary browser, but I was so wrong. I don't notice any performance implications after weeks of using FF compared to chrome, despite having read comments to the contrary.

Strange then how my Vivaldi browser doesn't have the load time, then. Almost like it's a punishment for non-chromium users.

It's punishing me and I'm using their app. Their video loading has been spotty as shit lately. And I know it's not my bandwidth, I've got 5Gbps available and 12ms latency to YouTube's closest data center.

I'm not even blocking the ads when I use it.

1 more...

How did we function before youtube. besides music videos I rarely like video anything. howto skip skip skip. Used up all my skips on amazon too.

There used to be a whole tv channel for music videos

Piped or FreeTube on desktop.

LibreTube on mobile. SmartTube on Android TV.

I haven't had to deal with Google's crap in a while. All of these have no ads and have Sponsorblock built-in. I do miss the algorithm's suggestions but I do discover new content creators through Nebula (and FreeTube has decent related video suggestions in my experience).

Does this apply to Freetube, Invidious and other yt mirrors?

Funny, because my ad-blocked vids load just fine in Safari

And this right here ladies and gentlemen (and other) is why we need to host our own. Hopefully somebody comes up with a peer2peer based youtube competitor.

I don't know about peer2peer but decentralized alternative exists. e.g. peertube

1 more...

Why? This is weird. Why not enforce a full 30 second delay or some length corresponding to the length of the ad? That would be a sure way to make people who can't circumvent the block turn off the ad blocker. That or they'd just do something other than watch youtube, which is also possible I suppose.

Doubtful. I'd rather see a black, silent screen for 30 seconds then an ad for some clone of a game.

1 more...

Maybe changing your user agent just let's you reroll whether you are in the group of users that are used for testing the increased loading time

I'm using Firefox but is it not possible to block ads in chrome too?

1 more...

Little do these companies know that poor people know how to be patient and older people remember the days of free ad supported internet dialup via cds, so this is not new and people will continue where business models fail.

It was happening for several days with me but it seems to be fixed now