• DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    213
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months 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
        18
        arrow-down
        63
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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
          53
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months 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.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Got any source on that? I’m legitimately asking to learn more about that.

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            11 months 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
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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?

              • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months 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.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months 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.

                • ag10n@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack.

                  Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party.

              • El Barto@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                Imagine a business making some smoothies with water provided by the utility company. The business decides to sell less appetizing smoothies to certain organizations. Are you saying that that’s a “water utility neutrality” issue?

              • vithigar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Where did I say it did? The fact that it’s not a net neutrality issue doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn’t this.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Hmmm, not sure why people are downvoting…

          Maybe these days people are using the term “net neutrality” in a broader sense to just mean equitable access, rather than the specific meaning that’s been used in the past to refer to ISP behavior and giving preference based on how much is paid?

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It also does that with other unrecognised user agents.

      Personally I don’t understand why someone would still use Google when duckduckgo has more features and is just as good for searching and in the very rare case it isn’t you can easily switch back temporarily by just adding the prefix “!g” to your query.

      • ruckblack@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I tried duckduckgo for a while and kept coming back to Google for “real” searches at work. It’s not as good for searching in my experience. Yet.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          11 months ago

          Duckduckgo has become a little better than it used to be… but google has also become a whole lot worse.

          • Klear@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, I haven’t quite found a replacement that is better than google, but the way the trajectories are, it’s only a matter of time.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you’re looking for research papers, duckduckgo (and yandex) is your friend - google is perfectly unusable for that these days.

          • pohart@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            an

            This is the truth. I switched back when I got a new pc at work, and google was way worse.

        • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          The vast majority of times I go back to Google to do a search I find it also returns useless results. I’m not convinced it’s any better than duckduckgo. I think it used to be, but not anymore.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            I had the same experience. I used switch between DDG and Google when DDG gave results I didn’t want. During the pandemic, I remember DDG giving lots of false positives and odd, non-standard web page hits. Like, if I was searching for current COVID advice, it would give me hits from the health department in Bumfuck, Nebraska instead of, say, CDC (and I don’t live in Bumfuck, Nebraska). It has really improved since then and now I can use DDG pretty much exclusively. Not having to scroll past a page of Google ads to find my search results is quite glorious.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Big same. I’ll even bang out to Startpage to try to avoid directly using Google (!sp vs. !g), but that’s not as good either.

          I bow to my search overlord Google. Until I try Grasp, Kagi, and SearXNG, and hopefully one of those will satisfy (in particular SearXNG).

          Until then DDG remains my default, and I’ll !g half the time :(

            • czech@low.faux.moe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Been using Kagi for a few months. Now that the unlimited tier is $10 it’s a no brainer, for me.

              • m_randall@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I tried it a few months ago and bought it before the trial was over. Took some time to build trust but it’s still on par with google if not better.

                (My account probably looks like a shill for them but I swear I’m just a happy user)

                • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I also really like Kagi, and their bundle for Ultimate users of the various text AI tools is also very helpful for work.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I really want to ditch Google, but DuckDuckGo aint there my brother.

        It may work for some simpler/lazy searches, but for real stuff, nah.

        The “good” thing is that Google search is going the way of Amazon, so with Google shooting themselves in the foot and DDG catching up a bit, maybe soon they’ll level

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Works perfectly fine for trouble shooting complicated IT problems.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        ddg always drops one of at least two troublesome terms. Which is infuriating.

        Might have to do with my settings, in which case it is a bug.

        Bangs are gold (which is why ddg is my default) but i still sometimes miss exclusions.

      • slumberlust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Isn’t ducksuckgo just paying for google search with a privacy wrapper/obfuscation layer on top?

      • DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’ve switched most defualts over to DDG but Google is still better for some things. Feels sort of like the late 99s/early 00s with Altavista, Ask Jeeves, etc.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      They dont want to just run it.

      they want to control and dictate it.

      Google needs a massive regulatory hammer to come down on it and smash it into dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny individual companies

      • Lemdee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That needs to happen more with Alphabet than Google but either would be great.

          • Lemdee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            There’s no reason that people should assume you meant Alphabet rather than Google? Seeing as you used “Google” rather than “Alphabet” as they’re two different words. English is fun!

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I bet you sit at home, dumbfounded and confused, as to why people never invite you to parties/trips.

              • Lemdee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’ll cry into my filled weekend social life and life partner of over a decade, you pegged me just so accurately. Super relevant username btw.

                Dude, you specified a company and I pointed out their parent company instead. I agreed with your original statement just indicated a better target. In the future, in social situations, a person who isn’t filled with angst would normally say something like “Oh you’re right, good call” or “Yeah, that would work too.” Something that adds to and continues the conversation instead of being a weird, defensive neckbeard about it. Have a good rest of your life, bud.

                • Xeknos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yeah, but we all knew what he meant and didn’t feel like being a pedantic asshole about it.

                  So he has that going, anyway.

        • space@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The internet is incredibly important to the modern society. Letting private companies only motivated by filling the pockets of the old farts shareholders run it is a bad idea. It’s time we consider Internet infrastructure like any other type of infrastructure.

          • 4lan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I find it wild we don’t nationalize the banks we bail out with trillions of our tax dollars. Each and every one of us should be getting dividends on their profits, we should own half of the banks by now

          • odelik@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I agree with you. But have you seen how California has handed over the power grid to private companies?

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Slam dunks, yes. But does any of the people who would bring a case against then have enough money to fight an army of more lawyers? Probably not.

      • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Idk I’ll just find some millionaire/billionaire who’s hungry for public approval in the space and bug them about it probably

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      The thing is, I really don’t think, Google would care about Firefox. Firefox is sitting at negligible percentages of usage share. The only real competitor to Chrome is Safari and that’s because of iOS.
      I guess, they might impact Safari on macOS with this, but someone would have to try this out to actually see, and ultimately, this could still just be a dumb mistake.

      Having said that, Google holds a near-monopoly in both video content and web browsers. They have a special duty to not disadvantage competitors and even if this was an honest mistake, I do think, it deserves a slap on the wrist.

      • SandroHc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        How much of Firefox’s dwindling market share do you think was caused by Google’s, Microsoft’s and Apple’s anticompetitive practices?

      • JonEFive@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Google has a history of this sort of “whoops, we got caught, uhhh… That was just a bug!” behavior.

        • Knusper@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They do have a history of such things happening, yes, which is why my comment exists in the first place. Normally, I would assume this to just be the result of regular shitty management practices paired with regular shitty profit motives.

          The history makes it look like they might genuinely have a higher motive here, and I’m saying I still don’t think so, because it would be far too petty and I don’t see them benefitting that much from it.

          • JonEFive@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I want to believe you and I hope you’re right, but I have such little faith in corporations ever doing the right thing anymore.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    YouTube thinks aarch64 Firefox is… a HiSense TV!!!

    Ah yes, televisions are exactly where the user wants lower resolution

  • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months 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.

    • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I randomly stopped getting the anti-adblocking. On my gaming PC I never got them, on my laptop they went away after I disabled my adblocking for one video and then re-enabled it. Now I don’t get them at all. Did they give up on me?

        • Swarfega@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          They no longer appear for me. The biggest change for me was just using uBlock Origin. Previously I also had Ghostery. If you run multiple extensions for privacy, try dropping them and only using uBlock.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Using an alternative front end isn’t losing

      Once they get rid of front ends and you go back they’ll have won

    • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Try opening your subscription page as usual with your ublock, but then right-click “open in private window” the videos you want to watch. Works for me.

    • YoorWeb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I wish Piped worked for me, I was trying to watch a Linux tutorial in full HD to see the commands better and Piped just refused to buffer the video.

      • Lorgres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are other alternatives too, like invidious. The yewtu.be instance works decently well for me but limits to 720p I think. There is a list of all running instances somewhere on the github iirc. There’s other instances that allow full HD, just have a search and you should be able to find one.

            • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              My YouTube redirect rule is a bit more complex, but works for all shorts, youtu.be and regular youtube links and it supports time stamps and videos that are part of a playlist.

              Set the rule to regular expression, use this one

              (?:https?:\/\/)?(?:www\.)?(?:youtube\.com\/(?:watch\?v=|shorts\/)|youtu\.be\/)([^&?\/]+[&?]?.*)

              remove the two “amp;” at the end (Lemmy formatting is bad, it replaces an ampersand with & even if you tell it not to…) and redirect to https://%yourinstanceofchoice%/watch?v=$1

              Enjoy!

              • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Okay, what I was trying to do with Redirector is have it so I can search and browse videos on YouTube, but when I click on something that I want to watch, it forwards me to the same video on YewTu.be instead.

                • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  That’s exactly what this is doing. It captures all youtube.com/watch, youtube.com/shorts and youtu.be/ pages and redirects then to the same page on invidious. Just replace %yourinstanceofchoice% with yewtu.be.

                  If you don’t open videos you want to watch in a new tab, you also have to go to Advanced Options in your rule and tick “HistoryState” else it will bypass the redirect.

                  This should work for you:

    • jflorez@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      What works for me is opening a new Private windows on Firefox, with ublock installed, and then login into YouTube. I do have to login every time I hope a private windows by so far I’ve been able to watch unlimited videos with an ad blocker installed

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    11 months ago

    User Agent String: A browser’s way of lying about what it is, in order to not trigger some server’s arcane content filtering system.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      User Agents should be optional. The whole idea of the Internet was that the server should respond the same way to the same request regardless of the client’s qualities.

      • essteeyou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        There are qualities that are useful for having different responses, like supported language, whether the browser accepts gzipped content, etc.

        • spiderplant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Fuck that shit.

          • You can do language codes in the URL to serve different versions of content
          • If your browser can do TLS then it should be able to handle gzip content or alternatively if the internet didn’t allow cookies and scripting in your browser then it would have been safe to use TLSs built in compression

          Check out the Gemini protocol if you want to see that a lot of HTTP spec stuff is completely unnecessary

              • essteeyou@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yeah, User Agent is also a header, which the other guy is saying shouldn’t exist.

            • spiderplant@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Some widely spoken language I imagine, Chinese, Spanish, English I don’t care. Since .com is intended for commercial use, the language of the companies biggest market makes sense here as well.

              You’re also forgetting that the likes of google.ru, google.nl and google.every_other_country_code exist.

              Also there are plently of websites the have language selection in the site that overrides that header, look at Wikipedia.

              There are plently of sites in non english languages that cater to non English speakers only, not every site has or needs 10 different translations.

              At this point we also have translation engines in the browser so for pages in languages you don’t know, that you absolutely need to access, you can use it to understand the page to a decent level and/or be able to navigate to a version in your language if available.

                • spiderplant@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I just used it as an example since it’s pretty much the lingua franca of the internet and it’s what we are currently using. The same argument applies to any other language.

                  My main point with that bit was that a lot of content exists on the internet without any translated versions and the world hasn’t ended because of this, look at non English Lemmy instances.

          • xcjs@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The issue is that some of those techniques are only useful after the client has rendered the content rather than before.

            • spiderplant@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              But they are useful and completely valid ways of dealing with the problem.

              It is not the end of the world if I have to click am extra once or twice to change the language. Hell most websites have much harder processes just to reject cookies.

              Personally I would rather err on the side of slightly extra work the odd time I’m not on a website not in my native language than have an extra bit of information that can be used to track me.

              Again take a look at the Gemini protocol, its a perfectly fine browsing experience without all the cruft.

              • xcjs@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Valid, but not standard and more inconvenient.

                Additionally, you act like query strings can’t be used to track you when they certainly can.

                Most of the advantages of Gemini are implemented in the client and not the protocol itself.

  • Epzillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    The more bullshit like this I read about YouTube the more I despite them. I already use GrayJay on mobile and I’m using ublock Origin + ublock Matrix on Librewolf to control cookie usage on desktop. So far I’ve been able escape the video player block by clearing cache.

    I’m just waiting for the day they “force” me onto another frontend.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Then your uBlock Origin filters aren’t working properly. See this thread for instructions on how to purge and update your filters to block YouTube’s ads and YouTube’s adblocker blocker.

          • Epzillon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean after clearing the cache it disappears. But I’ve seen the “your video player will be blocked” 3 or 4 times during the past few months maybe.

            • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Those 3 or 4 times may have been after Google had updated their anti-adblocking stuff and before uBlock Origin had updated their anti-anti-adblocking stuff.

              Also, do you have any other adblockers installed? Does your browser have its own adblocker? Either of those can cause interference with stuff like this.

              • Epzillon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Nope, I use Librewolf with uBlock Origin, uMatrix and BitWarden. Nothing else.

                But yes, I haven’t seen it in quite some time now.

      • Abnorc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It sort of does for me. I used ublock to block the popup and the overlay that prevents you from using the site. Sometimes a video will stop playing for a moment, but it resumes as soon as I hit play.

    • Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      im using librewolf too. i keep seeing the adblocker active warning instead of a video, in the video-box on youtube Plays just fine in private window though…

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      So Mozilla is going to take Google’s money and use that to sue Google?

      It’s going to be a bug report.

    • Marius@lemmy.mariusdavid.fr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Well… That seems uselessly risky and complex when you can just ask them to not do that. The issue tracker said the Youtube folks have been informed. Let’s just see if they fix that rather quickly. (but they are certainly not the only one with that kind of stuff. I’m not a big fan UA discrimination. I mean, this kind of stuff is what webcompat is all about.) (except for some purpose where you truly care about the architecture, like selecting a download link for an installer) (on the other side, I’m totally fine with feature-flags based discrimination, but that need to be done client-side).

    • ██████████@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      11 months ago

      yea like if they want money just grow some balls and ask for a monthly pay for youtube they got our generation like cable had our parents

      i would be willing to pay so much much money for REAL premium youtube

      i thank the community for all the amazing broadcasts

      • Drusenija@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Out of curiosity, what would you consider “real” premium YouTube to be? Are you thinking something where the creators get a higher share of the revenue in return for better production values?

        • Hylactor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not OP, but I just want videos. I don’t need or want their music service. That’s the premium I’m waiting for.

            • thoughts3rased@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Why though? Because when I have a perfectly competent music streaming service already, why do I essentially want to pay double for a redundant music service I won’t use? If I could just get the ad free experience for a cheaper price I’d be satisfied, but they add all the bells and whistles on top that I don’t care for and don’t want to pay for.

      • CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wanted to get premium and while i was considering it they had 2 price increases.

        No thank you, bye.

        I am of the mindset: i want value out of my money, subscriptions that let you own nothing immediately falls out of my requirements so i need it to be a price i’m willing to pay. Which is a low price.

        I cancelled spotify the moment they added €1 to the cost, all it gave me was a play button and a bunch of bullshit i don’t care for like a year in review. Dude, i was there…listening to that music, i already know what i played so i don’t need you to tell me.

        But that’s just me and i’m the odd one out it seems.

        I compare spotify like this; i bought a cd from the discount bin for €5 and got to play that for a whole life and i’d be happy if it was all i had. Spotify opens up do much music to you which is really cool BUT i used to buy a single album a year and copy that to a new cd/mp3 player to add it to the previous boughr cd’s. So my cost went from €5/€20 a year to €11 a month while i own nothing. In my head that’s automatically a waste of €112 euro’s that are spent with no real returning value.

        The biggest value most subscription services offer is: they’ll stop literally pestering you with ads.

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    From what I can understand from the thread, they aren’t deliberatly crippling FF.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        11 months ago

        The way I read it is Chrome gets a pass on the architecture crippling, the others don’t.

        Someone correct me if I got the wrong idea.

        • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So Google is saying out loud they are trying to be Microsoft and abuse its near monopoy to push their other products.

          Got it.

      • Engywuck@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        It looks like also this was against adblocker so, again, not specifically Firefox. Quote from the article itself:

        The issue was initially reported as targeting Firefox users, but users online have said they’re seeing the delay in Chrome and Edge, too. Reddit and Hacker News users who’ve examined the code that appears to be causing the delay have said they see no indication that YouTube checks what kind of browser is in use. Mozilla’s senior brand manager Damiano DeMonte wrote in an email to The Verge that “there’s no evidence that this is a Firefox-specific issue.

        • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Reddit and Hacker News users who’ve examined the code that appears to be causing the delay have said they see no indication that YouTube checks what kind of browser is in use

          That means nothing, this check could be done on the server side and noone would know

          • Engywuck@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean… We can we can invent a thousand conspiracies if we want to…

          • kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Except that the delay and ad blocker check is literally in the JavaScript code, you can see it.

            • Ace! _SL/S@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Indeed, but google can just transmit different javascript to different users/browsers/regions etc (that’s why browsers have useragents, so websites can improve browser compatibility according to the circumstances). It can be decided on a whim and noone would know except some coders at google

              • kautau@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Except everyone would know. Multiple people across the globe testing different browsers have looked at the same JavaScript code that is being sent to the browser. The check is there, client-side, google isn’t sending a different JavaScript payload for different browsers. Like you said, they could, but that’s not how it currently functions

      • Kalash@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Which turned out to also have nothing to do with FF but is targeting adblockers.

    • maynarkh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Having bugs for platforms outside the walled garden is a feature of the walled garden. That’s the beauty of it, they don’t need to purposefully cripple Firefox and other engines if they just don’t take it into account when creating features.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 months 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
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months 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
          2
          ·
          11 months 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.
          • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean, Google’s engineers also recently lost six months worth of a lot of people’s Google Drive files, so, honestly, anything’s possible.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

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

    • sugartits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Shhhh. We’re hating on YouTube as we want ad free videos but don’t want to pay for it and we’re hoping that bitching about it on a tiny social media platform will somehow get Google to pivot their entire business model.

      We don’t need no facts here.

      • YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Did YouTube make all of those videos? If not, then how much should YouTube get from hosting them? This whole argument that people just want free shit isn’t just wrong, it’s also annoying. People have proven time and again that we’re willing to pay for quality and convenience. And not in that order. Once again it’s an issue about access, how they’re fighting tooth and nail to gatekeep that access to continue to control the flow of capital so they can also play the kingmakers in digital media. Messages like yours are so off base that it’s hard to believe you’re not projecting your own shitty world view, but also somehow think that because you’ll gargle some shitty ads every once in a while that you have some moral high ground. AKA; one of those people who believe they’re right and that’s all that matters and you don’t actually have to think any deeper. PS: I hope I’m wrong. Please feel free to correct my own world view if I am.

        • Streetdog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          My local supermarket isn’t producing most of the products it has on its shelves, so fuck them too I guess.

          • YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Good counter-point, except that your local supermarket has to respect three separate market pressures that Google (edit: to be clear, I mean YouTube) clearly has no regard for:

            • Tight regulations.
            • Respecting its consumers.
            • Robust competition that isn’t prone to monopolistic enterprise.

            So no, I don’t feel that we should ‘fuck them, too I guess’ because when I go to the supermarket I feel like I’m the customer, not the product. I feel that I get what I’m paying for and that my time is respected. Nothing about YouTube leaves me feeling like that. There’s no sense that I’m a respected customer and therein no sense that there’s any value in trying to respect a clearly one-sided relationship.

            • Streetdog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Supermarkets use extensive marketing to trick you in buying all kinds of stuff. Just like Google (ahem, YouTube) does.

              But you want their stuff, so you have to deal with their stuff.

              We can discuss further on the subject of tracking that happens when you are a regular and have a membership, or the tracking of digital transactions. Even if you and I don’t necessarily partake in that by buying everything with cash to stay as anonymous as possible.

              I could ask you to clarify how you feel “respected” in that environment, but I have honestly little interest in the answer.

              • YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I feel respected because I grab the product I want, take it to the register, and pay for it and get the result that I expect based on what I paid. Marketing and manipulation aside, I acknowledge that’s part of being an educated consumer. I’d thank you for putting value in my response, but I’m not interested either.

        • sugartits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Did YouTube make all of those videos?

          Nobody is claiming they did

          If not, then how much should YouTube get from hosting them?

          Whatever the free market will pay. Like with any other product.

          This whole argument that people just want free shit isn’t just wrong, it’s also annoying.

          A paid option is available to those who find the ads annoying.

          Those who refuse to pay and try to block the ads are freeloading. Simple as that.

          People have proven time and again that we’re willing to pay for quality and convenience.

          And yet here we are. Yet again on Lemmy. Yet again with the crybabies wanting ad-free and cost-free shit without considering that someone somewhere has to pay for it. Google is not a charity.

          Once again it’s an issue about access, how they’re fighting tooth and nail to gatekeep that access

          What? Competitors exist. YouTube is free for nearly everyone.

          You are free to use the alternatives if you disagree with how YouTube works.

          That’s how the free market works; nobody has a gun to your head.

          Messages like yours are so off base that it’s hard to believe you’re not projecting your own shitty world view, but also somehow think that because you’ll gargle some shitty ads every once in a while that you have some moral high ground.

          I pay for premium. I’m happy to pay for content I enjoy and I’m happy that the creators I enjoy watching get a cut without me having to watch annoying adverts.

          I do not expect handouts. There is nothing “shitty” about paying for things.

          Maybe tone down the extremism and personal attacks against a stranger, huh?

          AKA; one of those people who believe they’re right and that’s all that matters and you don’t actually have to think any deeper.

          🥱

          • YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            And yet here we are. Yet again on Lemmy. Yet again with the crybabies wanting ad-free and cost-free shit without considering that someone somewhere has to pay for it. Google is not a charity.

            I was tempted to state that I was wrong, clearly you have thought about this, but I don’t agree with this perspective at all and won’t be changing my opinion. If we’re in the business of calling things out that “nobody said,” then nobody said Google was a charity.

            That’s how the free market works; nobody has a gun to your head.

            The ‘nobody has a gun to your head’ approach to laissez-faire mercantilism likes to ignore how important free market access is. Lack of access can be just as bad as a gun to the head, if not sometimes worse. This is a one sided argument in favor of corporatism that doesn’t address access. The main thrust of my point.

            I pay for premium. I’m happy to pay for content I enjoy and I’m happy that the creators I enjoy watching get a cut without me having to watch annoying adverts. I do not expect handouts. There is nothing “shitty” about paying for things.

            I don’t think YouTube has ever left me feeling like it had any regard for me as a consumer or even valued my time. It appears, from the many complaints I’ve seen by YouTube content creators, that many of them don’t feel valued or respected either. By the time Premium came along it had long lost me as an interested customer. There’s no feeling that one should honor a one-sided social contract because that requires an actual relationship. If I felt that YouTube actually cared about anything other than being the middle-man that ensures that I get served ads, and demands–but not delivers–respect for it, then maybe I would reconsider. Until then, I will enjoy their competing products. Ad-Blockers and supporting alternative hosting sites that make me feel more valued. They’ve assisted in creating their own black-market for ad-avoidance, and that’s the free market working.

            Maybe tone down the extremism and personal attacks against a stranger, huh?

            🥱

            • sugartits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I was tempted to state that I was wrong, clearly you have thought about this, but I don’t agree with this perspective at all and won’t be changing my opinion.

              I guess we’re done here then.

              The ‘nobody has a gun to your head’ approach to laissez-faire mercantilism likes to ignore how important free market access is.

              Oh, were still going. Okay.

              Erm. YouTube is free. It’s only not available where countries have blocked it.

              Lack of access can be just as bad as a gun to the head, if not sometimes worse.

              What? YouTube is not a necessity to human existence. It’s not food or shelter.

              That’s a stunning level of entitlement on show there.

              I don’t think YouTube has ever left me feeling like it had any regard for me as a consumer or even valued my time. It appears, from the many complaints I’ve seen by YouTube content creators, that many of them don’t feel valued or respected either. By the time Premium came along it had long lost me as an interested customer.

              Fair enough. So you’re going the ad route then?

              There’s no feeling that one should honor a one-sided social contract because that requires an actual relationship. If I felt that YouTube actually cared about anything other than being the middle-man that ensures that I get served ads, and demands–but not delivers–respect for it, then maybe I would reconsider.

              Ah, so you’re freeloading.

              Until then, I will enjoy their competing products. Ad-Blockers and supporting alternative hosting sites that make me feel more valued. They’ve assisted in creating their own black-market for ad-avoidance, and that’s the free market working.

              If you don’t want to pay, or view the ads, you should opt out and use an alternative or go without. That’s the ethical choice.

              • YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Excellent argument all around. I like that it stayed on point and didn’t devolve into something else entirely. I know you and I don’t necessarily agree, but I respect that you stood your ground and as a result, you as a person. I do feel that you could put more value into the demand-side of things, AKA, the consumer but there’s a bit of nuance there and we probably have different approaches that solve the same ideal. My follow on points would have been to argue that YouTube isn’t deserving of being given a social-contract of ethical conduct etc etc. I would also address that YouTube is central to some livelihoods and the financial well-being of others. I really wanted to highlight the sense of irony that I get that you would call a group of people crybabies and then feel personally attacked when someone took you to task and stood their ground on the counterpoint; however, I concede that if I had known you would have felt personally attacked I would have picked a softer tone and for that I apologize. I think we can both acknowledge that we’d only be arguing nuance at this point and that’s not a worthwhile use of our time. You sir (edit: or ma’am, or something in between, if it pleases), are not an NPC. (also edit; upvotes given for the statements except the original statement I disagreed with)

  • muzzle@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    11 months ago

    Joke is on them, i only ever use NewPipe (or freetube on desktop)

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve been trying to get ReVanced working on WSA and it force closes at start.

      Going to give newpipe a try, thanks!

        • 4lan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          yeah its installed! I even downloaded the specific version of youtube the patcher wants, IDK what I’m doing wrong

          Do I need to patch on my phone and then use that apk on the PC?

            • muzzle@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Stop screwing around and just get newpipe or libretube. The UI is a lot simpler and they are much more stable at the moment.

    • Befernafardofo@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Discovering freetube was the best thing of my video browsing life. It works so well it’s incredible Feels good to not be continuously tracked while watching videos.