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

Technology

59377 readers
3846 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
 

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!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AngryJadeRabbit@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Here’s a reason why net neutrality laws are good

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Seriously, someone needs to report this to the FCC since they just re-adopted Net Neutrality.

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

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?

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Google is not an ISP lol not when we're talking about YT

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google Fiber doesn't exist?

[–] LeroyJenkins@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] stormesp@lemm.ee 61 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also noticed it. Put it down to my sometimes flakey wifi. But this makes more sense. What a bunch of babies.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So that's why YouTube seemed to act weird. I thought my wi-fi was dying

[–] criticalthreshold@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Wow yeah. The delays have stopped on my end as well today.

[–] kusivittula@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ShunkW@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is not Firefox specific. It's another anti ad blocker technique they're trying.

[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wait, so their solution to people using adblock is to add a 5sec delay to everyone's videos?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] ShunkW@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

To anyone using an ad blocker it would appear. Not saying it's right, just trying to correct misinformation.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Time to spoof the user agent?

[–] krigo666@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 1 year ago

Nah, wouldn't want to contribute to Chrome market share.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.my.id 3 points 1 year ago

No, that just sweeps the issue under the rug.

[–] syrooks@infosec.pub 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Friendly reminder you can watch YouTube videos in VLC (I have not tested whether speed is affected this way)

[–] Shayeta@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure it takes more effort, if not also time, to copy URL into VLC every time i find a video.

[–] syrooks@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s about the principle lol

[–] Shayeta@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, spite, one of my favourite motivators. Carry on.

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago

The article gives the game away. Just change your user agent and you're golden.

[–] lapommedeterre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't put it past them, but I think it needs more evidence.

[–] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try spoofing your user agent and see if it improves.

[–] ledtasso@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Is anyone even able to reproduce the issue? It cannot be improved if you can't reproduce it in the first place.

[–] bradbrewsbeer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The video in the article does not clear caches before retrying and seeing a faster load. Amateur hour.

[–] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They actually found a 5-second sleep embedded in the JavaScript, so it's not the cache.

[–] elvith@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

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

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] 3xa8yte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

yt-[tab-tab] (paste)

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?

[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why does this sub allow duplicate posts?

[–] Betch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen

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