dvdnet89YouTube is reportedly slowing down videos for Firefox users
đđŞđłđŹAgain? I remember they did this years ago when releasing Chrome.
Something_ComplexIt it legal? I remember when Chinaâs tech giants started infighting and the party ended up dividing them and phorbiding them to do so.
They where creating tech exclusive for their devices and internally block all other out.
I just figured if we arenât doing it here there should be a reason. (Apple appart)
Iâm sorry to be the spelling guy but itâs âforbidâ not âphorbidâ
Do you have poor spelling fobia?
fujiwoodIâm sorry to be the spelling guy but itâs âphobiaâ not âfobiaâ
BaroqueInMindWoosh goes the joke over your head. âď¸
The PantserI think they got it and didnât give a phuck.
Na, I understand the joke just fine. If you were here when I replied my joke to the joke you would know that the post I replied to had negative votes until I made my joke. Then everyone else realized that they were making a joke and started giving them upvotes. Have a good day.
Keep phighting the good phight â
iwouldfightforyou.jpg
Iâm sorry to be the spelling guy but itâs âWhooshâ not âWooshâ
Hahaha ce la vi
helenslunchâReportedlyâ? Could they not just open Firefox and confirm?
JaxiiRuffBeen like this for a long time now. Both YT and YT Music are unusable on desktop due to the lag.
Eh, works fine for me. I donât watch a ton of YouTube, but I havenât noticed any real issues, and I use an ad blocker.
Thatâs odd
Thatâs been the case since Chrome was released.
MudManIncidentally, I dropped Youtube's web app like a rock when they started messing with adblockers and today they emailed me to say they're cutting down features in my account because "I don't have enough of a history".
I swear, these decaying tech firms just don't get the value of not appearing to be flailing in desperation.
hey're cutting down features in my account because "I don't have enough of a history".
any idea what this actually means?
What features are they cutting down?
Is this a free account?
e-raticI had the same email, it's creator-related features. So if you don't produce content it shouldn't affect anything
sourthey turn off video recommendations if your history isnât on
This is a plus for me. I donât want them to recommend me anything. I donât trust them not to recommend me stuff thatâs going to piss me off.
Their recommendations engine seems to stuck on â50 more of exactly the last thing you watched, plus a dash of right-wing conspiracy nonsense.â
Turns out when you stop using it the recommendations become more and more unhinged and take on a slight pleading tone.
It's weird and kinda satisfying to watch, honestly.
theneverfoxFor me itâs "oh? You really like this creator? Be careful not to binge their backlog all at once! I think youâve had enough. Let me hide the rest of their content for you so youâre not tempted
Hey, how about this news show where the guys stand instead of sitting, and wear normal clothes? They still awkwardly read off a teleprompter and have a very shallow understanding of the topics, but come on, you should watch them again. I know their shrill, forced, voices make you cringe and exit the video as fast as you can, but let me put that up next on auto play for you again
Once I made the mistake of looking up how to I change the oil on my Kawasaki Vulcan without being in incognito. Now half of my recommendations are how to perform maintenance on motorcycles that Iâll never own. And ads for Harley Davidson. A company whose business model is converting gasoline into noise.
I just use youtube-dl now and have it go to my NAS. Itâs not easier then going to the website, per se. But now the video lives on my storage and it wonât go away after a corporationâs billionth DMCA claim that hour.
Genuinely wish I had done this a decade ago on my favorite articles. Link rot is getting worse and worse and YouTube is the absolute worst.
I received the same notification on my artist account. I canât remember everything, but it was something like daily upload limits for videos and shorts and other creator related stuff. I donât think thereâs anything related to just basic usage features.
They take away the ability to include links in video descriptions. That's still not related to watching videos, but it seems like a legit eff you to small content creators.
Oh yeah I forgot about that. Thatâs definitely a big issue. I think you canât also pin comments.
Iâm skeptical. I use Firefox and I donât see this happen.
I havenât experienced it either, but Google also typically rolls out changes in waves. They rarely just push to prod and call it a day. They push changes in waves, so they can pull the update or make adjustments if the early waves have issues.
Footnote2669They do it so we gaslight the people that have it and then itâs too late to do anything when everyone has it lol
Really? I switched from Edge to Firefox recently and YouTube slowed to the point it takes minutes to load the home page and several refreshes. Actually, most Google pages, but YouTube is the one I really use these days.
The videos themselves load fine, and of course every other website loads fine at the same time, but YouTube is nearly unusable if you canât even get to the video in the first place.
DeebsterIâd seen it in my Firefox/Win10 + uBlockO setup. I just used yt-dlp and then a uBlock âquick fixesâ update recovery sorted it.
Same.
The anti-adblock warnings only lasted a few days for me too, not seen them for a couple of weeks now.
The Picard ManeuverIs this arguably anticompetitive and illegal?
Schwim DandyNobody can even state that itâs actually happening âfor competitive browsersâ as even Chrome users are reporting an unexplained lag/slowdown. At this point, itâs just wild speculation and bandwagoning.
Thereâs been multiple posts pointing to some possibly âwait for ads to finish loadingâ type code. Itâs quite possible that itâs just bugged in Firefox etc since browsers are horrendously inconsistent etc.
But that doesnât make a cool headline so instead the âitâs Google being evilâ story is the popular one.
sibachianit was already made public in the lawsuit some weeks ago that they are indeed slowing down youtube for firefox.
phillaholicSource?
Iâve read a lot on this and never saw any conclusive claim here.
There were claims many years ago by Mozilla about this, and it had to do with slow APIs in Mozilla that YouTube was usingâŚ
I donât see anything about this in recent history, because everything is just floods of people complaining about this round, with still no conclusive evidence that this is happening intentionally. YouTube is currently on a ad-block-blocker crusade and their code keeps changing and thereâs nothing to conclusively indicate that this is malice and not just a bug in the way Mozilla performs.
So as much as everyone seems happy to burn the witch because of poor performance, Iâm not ready to jump to that conclusion until thereâs actually evidence of this being intentional. âSomeone said they areâ is not going to convince me. Especially if you canât even point to that someone saying that thing.
LoafyLemonYou absolutely can tell what's happening by reading the source code. They are using a listener and a delay for when ontimeupdate promise is not met, which timeouts the entire connection for 5 full seconds.
function smb() { var a, b, c, d, e, h, l; return t(function(m) { a = new aj; b = document.createElement("ytd-player"); try { document.body.prepend(b) } catch (p) { return m.return(4) } c = function() { b.parentElement && b.parentElement.removeChild(b) }; 0 < b.getElementsByTagName("div").length ? d = b.getElementsByTagName("div")[0] : (d = document.createElement("div"), b.appendChild(d)); e = document.createElement("div"); d.appendChild(e); h = document.createElement("video"); l = new Blob([new Uint8Array([26, 69, 223, 163, 159, 66, 134, 129, 1, 66, 247, 129, 1, 66, 242, 129, 4, 66, 243, 129, 8, 66, 130, 132, 119, 101, 98, 109, 66, 135, 129, 4, 66, 133, 129, 2, 24, 83, 128, 103, 1, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 21, 73, 169, 102, 153, 42, 215, 177, 131, 15, 66, 64, 77, 128, 134, 67, 104, 114, 111, 109, 101, 87, 65, 134, 67, 104, 114, 111, 109, 101, 22, 84, 174, 107, 169, 174, 167, 215, 129, 1, 115, 197, 135, 207, 96, 156, 234, 24, 157, 175, 131, 129, 1, 85, 238, 129, 1, 134, 133, 86, 95, 86, 80, 56, 224, 138, 176, 129, 1, 186, 129, 1, 83, 192, 129, 1, 31, 67, 182, 117, 1, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 255, 231, 129, 0, 160, 204, 161, 162, 129, 0, 0, 0, 16, 2, 0, 157, 1, 42, 1, 0, 1, 0, 11, 199, 8, 133, 133, 136, 153, 132, 136, 63, 130, 0, 12, 13, 96, 0, 254, 229, 106, 0, 117, 161, 165, 166, 163, 238, 129, 1, 165, 158, 16, 2, 0, 157, 1, 42, 1, 0, 1, 0, 11, 199, 8, 133, 133, 136, 153, 132, 136, 63, 130, 0, 12, 13, 96, 0, 254, 232, 120, 0, 160, 187, 161, 152, 129, 3, 233, 0, 177, 1, 0, 47, 17, 252, 0, 24, 0, 48, 63, 244, 12, 0, 0, 0, 254, 229, 106, 0, 117, 161, 155, 166, 153, 238, 129, 1, 165, 148, 177, 1, 0, 47, 17, 252, 0, 24, 0, 48, 63, 244, 12, 0, 0, 0, 254, 232, 120, 0, 251, 129, 0, 160, 188, 161, 152, 129, 7, 208, 0, 177, 1, 0, 47, 17, 252, 0, 24, 0, 48, 63, 244, 12, 0, 0, 0, 254, 229, 106, 0, 117, 161, 155, 166, 153, 238, 129, 1, 165, 148, 177, 1, 0, 47, 17, 252, 0, 24, 0, 48, 63, 244, 12, 0, 0, 0, 254, 232, 120, 0, 251, 130, 3, 233 ])], { type: "video/webm" }); h.src = lc(Mia(l)); h.ontimeupdate = function() { c(); a.resolve(0) }; e.appendChild(h); h.classList.add("html5-main-video"); setTimeout(function() { e.classList.add("ad-interrupting") }, 200); setTimeout(function() { c(); a.resolve(1) }, 5E3); # <------------------------ 5E3 = 5s return m.return(a.promise) }) }
Iâm sorry but I donât see how that check is browser-specific. Is that part happening on the browser side?
They donât need to put incriminating âif Firefoxâ statements in their code â the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.
Does it though? You cant just speculate that something could happen and insinuate that it is without evidence.
I donât know, nor am I speculating. The person I was replying to said they didnât see a browser check in the code, which isnât enough to dismiss it.
Easy enough to test though. Load the page with a UA changer and see if it still shows up when Firefox pretends to be Chrome
The video in the linked article does just that. The page takes 5 seconds to load the video, the user changes the UA, they refresh the page and suddenly the video loads instantly. I would have liked to see them change the UA back to Firefox to prove itâs not done weird caching issue though
Yeah, and also Edge or an older version of Chrome etc just to be sure.
I guess his question is âis that happening?â
Well, at least I learned that javascript understands exponential notation. I never even bothered to try that lol
Can I have ublock block that? It seems simple enough to extract that code out.
Itâs not wild speculation as there is compelling if incomplete evidence and to describe everyoneâs reaction as âbandwagoningâ is ridiculous. Firefox and Mullvad are my daily drivers. This directly impacts me. The fediverse is going to have a disproportionate number of non-chrome users.
I also use FF solely and have no slowdowns on YT. I guess they like my copy of the browser.
Iâve duplicated it on 4 machines across 3 OSâs. Glad you got lucky. Iâm sure youâre also familiar with A/B testing. If not Iâm happy to direct you to Wikipedia.
It is absolutely possible there is a reasonable explanation but for you to say 1) nothing is happening and 2) itâs âbandwagoningâ is, again, ridiculous. Especially if your evidence is âwell mine is fine,â which is not acceptable troubleshooting procedure.
Not all regions are served with the same scripts. Thatâs why the ad-block pop-up was shown for some users but not for others or at a later time for others. This also affected the update cycle of those anti-adblock scripts.
The reason for that is quite simple. New stuff is rolled out to only some users at first as some sort of beta testing procedure. If many people complain about functionality issues and all of those have the new version of the script, Google knows there is something wrong with it.
Aradina [They/Them]âworks fine on my machine lolâ is unhelpful and useless.
Itâs very well known that Google makes heavy use of a/b testing. They did it with the adblock block and theyâre doing it with this
âIt happens all the timeâ and âthey always do *â is also comically unhelpful and useless. Iâm getting a pot/kettle vibe from those that seem to take offense at my comment.
We arenât offended. We just think youâre wrong.
Whereâs the proof? Note: I didnât read the article