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.”
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.”
Hanlon’s razor - “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is not only adequately explained by stupidity, but it makes the most logical sense to be explained by stupidity. They are actively fighting a war with AdBlockers. They are trying to block AdBlockers, and AdBlockers are working as quickly as possible to fight those changes. Then Google has to fire back as quickly as possible. This is resulting in rapid published changes to counteract AdBlockers and their retaliation. It makes all too much sense that their fight against AdBlockers did not work as intended. The people making these changes are Google software developers, and I really do not think any of them have an issue with Mozilla.
I don’t know how stupid YouTube devs would have to be to:
Tie the delay that was supposed to fight AdBlock to user-agent (changing it to chrome fixes the issue)
Ignore Youtube Premium users that pay for ad-free experience
For those reasons I think it’s pretty safe to say that this goes beyond stupidity and into malice territory.
What evidence is there of this being user-agent based? I’ve heard people make this claim, but I have not seen evidence of it and when testing on my own machine there was no delay at all.
I’d wager Googles only releasing it to some users at first like they do with most things.
Unless you consider fighting adblockers a futile stupidity, you should first apply Occam’s razor - explanation requiring least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one.
In this case spoofing user-agent string of Chrome is enough to fix all the performance issues on Firefox, meaning there is no fancy anti-adblock code or anything like that.
Right, they got caught doing some hot button issue shit with the FCC talking about renewing the NN rules and they didn’t want to reignite the debate themselves. Google owns YT. Google makes money on ads, yeah, but they are also dominating the browser game with more people switching to firefox. Both explanations make sense, but only one of them calls for covering up/lying. Also, when any company gets caught doing something that they have some other excuse for, I’m liable to believe the appearance rather than the PR response.
This is under the assumption that the user agent change is real. I have seen this spread time and time again, and every time I ask if there is any evidence. So I will ask you as well: do you have evidence for it, or have you experienced it first hand? I have yet to have someone prove that this is true, and I have not been able to create it myself (I tried, but never got a delay to begin with). So until there is evidence that this is true, and not just a rumor being spread, than Occam’s razor cannot apply.
I saw this myself when this was news. Created empty firefox profile, installed only userscript changer plugin.
Default user agent - rotating loading circle before video starts playing. Windows/Chrome user agent - video starts immediately.
Tried with multiple videos, changing first user agent that opened the video to make sure it’s not cached somewhere.
Didn’t bother to install Chrome for reverse test though.
Now it’s back to loading at the same speed regardless of user agent though.
And basing it on user agent doesn’t even make any sense for fighting adblock, that only makes sense for targeting browsers, which their devs know because (I’m assuming) they’re not stupid enough to not understand a core part of their technology stack
Except Google has done the exact same thing to numerous other products and have multiple anti competition cases against them specifically related to Chrome. Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t apply IMO if there is a track record of the behaviour, as that clearly shows intent and premeditation.