• CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They finally made YouTube unusable for me even with ublock. Refreshing the filters didn’t work and told me I could only watch 3 videos.

    Google was always going to win the war but I didn’t expect it to be like this.

    I’m now using piped for all YouTube videos.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why are you using YouTube at all if you don’t like it so much? Go use something else.

  • slimarev92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like how nobody actually bothered to read the thread and doesn’t understand this is a bug and wasn’t done on purpose.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quite a reductive statement based on a very small obscured window into what Google is doing with user agent profiling but go off I guess since you’re so sure

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not. First of all, the code doesn’t check for Firefox at all. Second, it blocks 4K for all Android devices. Conclusions people came up with here just show utter ignorance.

        • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Google has teams of highly paid expert engineers who’s entire job is to maintain and develop youTube. What do you think is more likely:

          1. Google’s engineers were unable to tell that performance in Firefox is degraded by their changes.
          2. Google sees it as advantageous to disadvantage their competitors - including Firefox. And although they might not be able to do it deliberately, for legal reasons, they can still do it by introducing platform specific changes and strategically neglecting to make it work properly.
          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Have you actually checked the code? It doesn’t target Firefox at all. Man…

  • DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck Google.

    Searching a tracking number from Chrome using Google? Finds a package.

    Same search on Google from Firefox leads to nothing.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Edit 2: Well, at least I know I’m right. Downvote away.

        Sorry, I’m all for net neutrality, but behavior based on browser usage, while dickish, has nothing to do with it.

        Edit: it seems like I’m being schooled. Got any sources to back up your downvotes?

        Edit 3: nope. I’m not being schooled. The downvoters should either get better informed or stop downvoting with their emotions.

        • Zunon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          yes it does, net neutrality not only has to do with the ISP but also the services. different useragent string should NOT lead to a worse quality of service.

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right, but your service provider has nothing to do with that difference. The fact that the entity you’re contacting on the other end of the connection is providing a degraded experience isn’t an internet service delivery problem.

            Your internet service, which is what net neutrality is concerned with, is distinct from services on the internet. In the same way that your phone service has nothing to do with the quality of service you get from HP’s telephone support line.

            • ag10n@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone?

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nobody is defending the practice, they’re just differentiating it from what we’ve previously referred to as “net neutrality,” which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic.

                Unless I missed the memo, and “net neutrality” means something different now.

              • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It doesn’t, but that isn’t their point. They’re simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses.