• micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      130
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      82
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it more anti competitive than McDonald’s only selling McDonald’s burgers or preventing you from bringing Taco Bell tacos in from outside?

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t Tesla do the equivalent of that with charging stations?

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe. But Tesla doesn’t own over 50% of the charging station market share.

            • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              True… I think even if they don’t, it’s still potentially anti-competitive.

              (Gawd, Imagine how life would be with gas station incompatibility with your car. Holy shit that would suck).

          • ubermeisters@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tesla, you mean the one that literally made and freely distributed the open standard that almost all vehicle chargers are based on? And may have a better understanding of the technology as a result and able to charge faster accordingly? That same Tesla? What a wild notion!!

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s less restrictive than what I said. McDonald’s won’t let you bring tacos in at all, doesn’t just make you wait at the door for 2 minutes, etc.

          Edit: and to anyone quibbling with my McDonald’s example saying you can in fact bring tacos in, that was just an illustration. I can find plenty of examples of one establishment not letting people bring food in from somewhere else.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t feel your analogy quite captures what is going on here because both McDonald’s and Taco Bell are in the same business. Maybe if you explain it more.

            Google owns a major web destination, YouTube, essentially a line of business in its own right, in addition to Chrome, also its own distinct product. Firefox competes with Chrome but Google is allegedly using market dominance with YouTube to make it harder for Firefox to compete.

            If a company owns two products A and B and if A is used to access B, company cannot hinder competitors to A via fuckery in B.

            This is the kind of thing that MS got in trouble for – using Windows to tip the scales in favor of Internet Explorer by tightly integrating it into the OS.

            McDonald’s prohibiting people from using their restaurant, which is not itself a separate product with a separate market. Nobody is clamoring to go to McDonald’s restaurant spaces to sit and eat. It’s just part of the restaurant offering. So there is no leverage like there is with YouTube being used against a competitor for a totally different product. And besides, Taco Bell can do the same as McDonald’s. They’re on equal footing.

            If in your analogy there were some other product that McDonald’s owned that could penalize you for going to Taco Bell your analogy would work.

            • Google – Ford
            • Mozilla – Chevy
            • Firefox – Chevy car
            • Chrome – Ford Car
            • YouTube – Ford gas station
            • rchive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for your question.

              I see food preparation and dining rooms as separate industries, even if they don’t appear that way at first. The most we can see this in practice is probably mall food courts. Web content like YouTube is the food and the web browser is the place or mechanism by which we consume “food”.

              Is being allowed to take tacos into McDonald’s a hill I’m going to die on? No, of course not, it’s just the first illustration I thought of. Lol. I could probably come up with a better example, that one was just easier and more visual.

              To be clear, I’m not saying there’s no anticompetitiveness happening, I’m saying that all vertical integration is basically this same amount of anticompetitiveness, and vertical integration is often very good, which is why we tolerate it all the time.

              I agree the comparison to MS and Internet Explorer is somewhat similar. I also think that case was not decided particularly well, and it’s not as revealing as it could have been since it ended up settling out of court, and IE ended up getting crushed by Chrome just a few years later.

              I wonder, if Google made a new app called YouTube that could only watch YouTube and made it the only app that could watch YouTube, sort of like Quibi, would that be more competitive or less competitive? No one is asserting that Quibi was anticompetitive at all, correct? That would be even worse for Firefox users, they’d completely lose access to YouTube unless they downloaded a 2nd app, this time YouTube instead of Chrome, but like Quibi it would seem to dodge all these competition concerns completely. I think that shows how these concerns can be selective and kind of nonsensical.

      • qfjp@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it more anti competitive than McDonald’s only selling McDonald’s burgers

        Yeah, it’s more like the next time you go to Wendy’s, McDonald’s will follow you and try to lock the doors before you go in.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, not really. Google can’t do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.

          • qfjp@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are countless other video streaming services.

            There are government websites - including my state’s dmv - that exclusively use youtube. You’re being disingenuous when you’re saying you can just use another streaming service (and I don’t believe you don’t know it).

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Yes. Yes, it is!

        2. McDonald’s doesn’t actually give a shit if you bring in food from other places.

  • scholar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    344
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    203
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      107
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • pup_atlas@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • bamboo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I personally don’t think an argument like that would hold up. A company making its service worse in itself isn’t going to win court cases, and this is hardly the worst example of a tech company making its products worse unless you use more of their software.

            • pup_atlas@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Perhaps not, but it’s not just the act of making the service worse, it’s doing so measurably to paying customers ONLY when using a competitors product. With those caveats, I think you could at least argue standing. Winning is a whole other battle.

          • bamboo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            On what standing though? Mozilla potentially has standing, and if the government finds that google is a monopoly, then the government could have standing, but nobody else.

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Users affected by it, Mozilla, any other company that comes to support Mozilla, watchdog groups like the EFF…

          It can also be brought by attorneys general and governmental regulators, the FCC and FTC might have a bit to say about it…

          Antitrust suits aren’t civil cases, I don’t think, so “having standing” is a bit different

          I’m not a lawyer though so I could be way off base, but the antitrust cases I’ve been aware of I don’t think they were brought by companies but by government agencies

        • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t Mozilla a non profit? I don’t they can sue for anything along the lines of hurting profits to the company.

      • sweeny@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What law are they breaking? Not trying to defend Google or anything, just curious what law is blatantly being broken here because I don’t know of one

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s an anti competition law, they cannot penalize you for using a competitor service. This would be like getting fined by McDonald’s because I went to Taco Bell.

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Blatantly anticompetitive behavior where you (ab)use your dominance in one sector (i.e. YouTube) to choke out competition in another (i.e. make it slow on competing browsers) is illegal in the US and the EU, at the very least. I don’t know the specific laws or acts in play, but that’s the sort of thing that triggers antitrust lawsuits

    • nfsu2@feddit.cl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is being currently being sued by Epic Games for Anti-Trust behavior. Google offered millions of dollars to Epic so that Fortnite would be available in the Play Store and not in Epic’s own store.

    • cannache@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Trying to convince people to use your product by crippling other people’s stuff really needs to stop. Did they not do an analysis on the issue of diminishing returns?

  • pastaPersona@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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)

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • pelicans_plight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone should remember that Google itself isn’t really as evil as the people who work for it, those “people” are the only thing keeping this shitty company going. They go to work every day to try and make this world a worse place, those people who enable evil need to start to be recognized for who they truly are, the ones who want total enshittification and love watching you suffer. At what point do we start to look at thr root of this problem?

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow, and it’s literally just “If you’re using Firefox, wait five seconds.”

    • sulgoth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      This sounds like something that would be in the back end so likely not. But if spoofing user agents fixes the problem then I’d say it’s evidence enough to warrant a deeper look.

    • fosho@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s pretty inconclusive if there’s no context for how that code is called. I’m kinda confused why the article wouldn’t have provided any additional detail other than a single line of code. why bother digging at all?

      • _thisdot@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s part of their anti-adblock code. without going into too much details, they can instantly find out whether ad-block is trying to do anything on chrome, but on firefox they need a 5 sec delay

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is honestly to Firefox’s credit. Making it harder to find out stuff about your browser is a good thing, unless it has to do with feature support.

          But the fact that they don’t give a shit and are willing to ruin the user experience for it, that’s despicable.

        • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d be more likely to believe that if spoofing your user agent didn’t immediately fix the issue.

    • fernandofig@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you read past that screenshot of the code, though? It says the problem was not limited to Firefox, it seems Edge users reported problems as well. Anecdotally, I did experience that delay problem on Thorium this weekend as well. I have seen a variation of this problem almost a month ago, where sometimes the video would take a long time (like, over a minute, sometimes) to load, or often just not load at all. So I just chalked it up to Youtube having done something stupid on their end.

    • lipilee@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      that half sentence in the aa article though

      “That move makes sense in many ways, as the platform needs to make money to survive…”

      should we also start a gofundme for youtube, i am suddenly worried for them /s

  • Danny M@lemmy.escapebigtech.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a reason that doesn’t appear on their site or in their docs any more. It was a canary clause.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any organisation that needs to remind themselves not to be evil is already intrinsically evil.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very overtly and loudly claiming a quality which should be self-evident in oneself, one’s company or one’s nation invariably means it’s not really there.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            “The Greatest Democracy In The World” - Lots of US politicians, including those activelly engaged in gerrymandering and passing vote supression laws.

            The dictum, supposedly from Einstein, about only the universe and human stupidity being infinite, needs to be ammended to include hypocrisy.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The country with the most Freedom™*

              *Freedom™ must be redeemed in Freedom™ tokens; sufficient Freedom™ tokens entitles you to trample others’ Freedom™; insufficient Freedom™ tokens entitles you to die in the gutter

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not anymore: they ditched it for “do the right thing (for my wallet)” a couple years back

    • cannache@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like there’s scales of evil here Google starts to need to highlight on a whiteboard

    • trent@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually, their slogan was “Don’t be evil.” But they revised it recently by adding a comma after the first word.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not arbitrary enough that they thought they could keep saying it. They ditched that about a decade ago.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “It’s evil not to make as much money as possible”, Google founders. C-suite and board, probably.

  • Delta_V@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

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

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

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google LOVES A/B testing so it might be just that. I haven’t noticed anything either.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, could just be lucky. I still haven’t noticed any ad blocking changes either, but then again I’m using Firefox with μBlock Origin…

    • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m in the EU, using Vivaldi, and have the delay since yesterday. It’s not on every video though. Seems like UBlock and YouTube are fighting each other every time I open a new link.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s interesting. Could be uBlock doing its thing then, for which I’m quite thankful