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.”
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!
Yeah, not sure what they are expecting to happen…
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.
Not to mention the ad would almost certainly be longer than 5 seconds anyway
“supposed to”
Oopsie whoopsy, we accidentally made competing browsers disadvantaged.
Deliberate, disguised as accidental. Disgusting.
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.
Embedded .midi files
“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.
Dear God, won’t anyone think of the shareholders?
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.
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.
Chrome sends every single website you visit to Google. You already pay with your privacy.
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.
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 issueI am a Firefox user who uses adblock and I don’t get the issue.
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.
Alphabet’s monopoly is bad, make no mistake.
But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.
Uh… Gmail, Ad sense, search?
They’ve got like a dozen duopolies going on, they have far more control and ability to leverage it than Bell ever did
What do you mean by change user agent to chrome? Asking 4 a friend
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.
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
How can we do that?
I haven’t tried it in a while, but I think there are browser extensions for it. Might need to ask someone else for how to do it these days
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 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 €?” [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.
It is absolutely scary how much ad companies know about my private life
The ad company does not actually know anything about you or your life. That’s an illusion.
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.
I find this so weird. Like, I want the exact literal opposite of what you want - I want personalized ads about shit I might conceivably click on.
I want usable personalized internet that knows where I am and offers me local deals and hotspots.
The hell are you so afraid of? Honestly?
The ads are not necessarily for things that are helpful to you, they are for things that other people want you to spend money on. There’s a big difference.
The entire point of ads is that they target the middle part of that venn diagram.
I cannot imagine being dumb enough to buy something you’re not interested in just because an ad popped up. An entire industry exists because that so rarely happens
Unfortunately, you’re misinterpreting the purpose of advertising. What you and I expect, logically, is what I used to teach the kids I trained back when I worked at a fish market. I told them, “Your job isn’t to convince the customer that they want something. They already know what they want. Your job is to use your knowledge to inform them so they buy what they need instead of getting what they think they need.”
However, this isn’t traditionally what advertising is for. Traditional advertising is about taking a shotgun to that Venn Diagram and blowing a hole through the entire circle because it’s cheaper and easier, and will grab people from outside the middle too. Take Coca-Cola, for example. Everybody knows what Coke is, they have no need to advertise to make people aware of their product. They could save billions by not advertising and people would still know who they are and what they sell. The reason that they put so much money into advertising every year, plastering their logo on billboards and TV commercials and the like, is because they want to plant their product into your subconscious. They don’t expect you to see an ad for Coke and go out and buy some, though they’d love it if you would; what they want is the next time you go to buy groceries or order food at a restaurant, you’re going to get a Coke since their product is in the back of your mind. Car ads are about making you remember that clever ad you saw the next time you’re planning on getting a car so you’ll buy their brand. Not on the merits of the cars themselves but on the ad sticking in your mind. It’s easier to get somebody to buy something based on them remembering a catchy jingle on the radio than to convince them that your product is better than the competitors. Shops like Temu are based entirely on getting you to buy stuff you’re not interested in, simply because “it’s such a good deal!” and if you don’t buy it now, you’ll miss out on the savings!
Targeted ads are just about increasing the likelihood that you’ll view an ad by making that process more efficient, often by violating your privacy as an individual. Advertisers don’t pay per clickthrough, they pay per view. As far as platforms like YouTube and Facebook are concerned, you’re the product that they’re selling to the companies, and tracking everything you do is just about finding the right companies to sell you to. You being happy with a purchase is just a side effect of that transaction. It’s why if you look up technology patents, you’ll find stuff like televisions designed to track your eyes to make sure you’re actually watching the ads or prevent you from muting the TV during ads. This is why Google is cracking down on adblockers so hard right now. People who use adblockers are statistically less likely to click on an ad than people who don’t. But YouTube doesn’t care about that. They care that those people aren’t viewing ads and therefore they can’t charge advertisers for those views, even though forcing people with adblockers to see ads would actually reduce companies clickthrough rates so they’d be paying YouTube more for less. Ironically, it’s in both advertisers and people who use adblockers best interest to prevent Google from ruining adblockers.
So you want to constantly be a slave to your consumerist impulses as you uncritically consume everything thrown at you, despite all the evidence that these companies can literally manipulate your perception of reality through targeted political advertising and echo chambers? Enjoy your terrifying dystopia, but at least you think you’re getting a ‘local deal’ so who cares, right?
So you want to constantly be a slave to your consumerist impulses as you uncritically consume everything thrown at you,
Holy shit dude what happens to you when you see an ad??
You need to inform yourself about advertising. Go and look up Edward Bernays. You literally can’t stop ads affecting you, except by eliminating them. You think you’re being a critical consumer, but you’re right where they want you.
I know more about advertising than you do man, sorry
That’s pretty presumptive. And pretty unlikely as you’ve shown yourself to be very naive about how advertising works. If you have any qualifications in it, your initial confusion shouldn’t have been there.
Filter bubbles are one thing, which I find is a huge disadvantage to personalization. You’ll never learn about new stuff, because it will never be presented to you, since someone assumes that you blong to a specific box.
Another is that I value my privacy. It’s no one’s business what I do, when, where, with whom and how. Apart from that, there is no guarantee that this information is not being misused.
For example, I’m thinking about political campaigns, which target specific user groups on the one hand, or spread misinformation and distrust to others. I see such forms of information steering as detrimental to democratic societies. Free and unbiased information is crucial for critical thinking.
This is bullshit even being truth lol “is supposed to punish adblockers” such entitlement and normalization.
Freetube, Newpipe, Indivious. All great.
peertube
I like it, but the stuff I want to see is not on there.
I’m nervous about how long it’ll be until those stop working
That might be hard unless they start requiring logins.
Twitter has already moved in that direction.
And twitter is doing pretty good, right?
5 seconds of silence vs 30+ seconds of ads. Tough choice Google, tough choice.
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
Bro my position is very clear. I’d rather forget about YouTube entirely than let ads back into my life
While I think Google is a monster that needs to be destroyed, it’s silly to me that your two options are either block ads or leave. The third option would be pay for the service. If your only problem is the ads and not the tracking (which probably isn’t true, but it’s the only complaint you made in the comment), then paying for it is a valid solution. It shouldn’t be controversial to say video hosting costs money to run, which obviously includes YouTube. So giving it out for free is simply not a realistic option. You’re free to leave, but you won’t have anywhere else to go that meets the “free and no ads” requirement. If you realistically don’t want ads, you will have to pay. And if you’re fine with paying, YouTube is currently the platform with the most content to offer.
Honestly, I’m thankful paying is an option. I wish Google would offer a paid package overall to stop the tracking/data collection. I would literally just give them my money for actual privacy with their services.
I would pay for the service if it weren’t an absolutely ridiculous price.
$14 a month is bonkers.
I value YouTube, at most, at about $5 a month. I can easily do without it.
I value YouTube, at most, at about $5 a month. I can easily do without it.
There you have it. If the cost of the service is not worth it, then users won’t buy it. Either enough users will pay for it that the service will stay as it is for the price it is, they will decrease the cost of the service, or improve the service they are offering. Or, given Google’s track record, just kill of the service entirely.
I will also point out that many users pay for Spotify for $11 USD a month. YouTube premium includes YT Music, which is a direct competitor to Spotify. So for users who pay for Spotify, it would be virtually $3 for ad-free YouTube. Of course this doesn’t work if you don’t pay for a music streaming service, but as far as services go it certainly isn’t unreasonably priced. Sure, it may be unfair that they don’t offer just a YT ad-free package, perhaps with all this backlash they will. Or perhaps not. It’s Google, they’ll do whatever they fuck they want.
Freetube? It’s an app, look it up
None of these alternate options allow me to watch on my TV without ads. I almost never watch anything on my phone, and when I do I have YouTube revanced for that
Brave on android lets you watch youtube with no ads. As long as the adblocking and fingerprint blocking is set to aggressive
It’s like when a teacher can’t target the bad kid so they punish the whole class instead.
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 never experienced that delay in the first place…
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 it’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 isn’t sustainable. Some day things will go south.
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.
short term. The problem is driving short term profit. In the short term, you profit by abusing your customers. If you considered long term profit, you need to also consider customer satisfaction
No, I stand by what I said.
If you build something well, it will sell itself. You won’t need financial gymnastics to make your company or the product look good.
Stupid financial tactics like stock buybacks (which, as a result of how the stock market works, have a direct positive impact on stock price) should be illegal.
The problem is the focus on profit over and above the focus on literally anything else. That’s what modern corporate leadership has come to understand as the true meaning behind Friedman’s words. And it’s killing our society, our environment, and in many cases, the companies themselves (because the tactics are obviously unsustainable).
YouTube didn’t have ads before it got bought IIRC, not that it would have lasted that way even if it was not bought
It’s been many years, but I remember a small banner ad below the video and maybe one to the side. It was so reasonable though it’s hard to remember for sure.
