While this is abhorrent, I have to say in general Firefox is just painfully slow on mobile compared to other browsers. Don’t know what it’s doing but I stopped using it because it’s noticeably slow.
I’m using Fold 5 and can tell a difference in scrolling performance between Samsung Internet and Firefox. There are also some issues regarding how the UI handles transition between folded to unfolded and vice versa.
The worst part is that a Youtube Premium Subscription costs more than Netflix or other streaming providers here in Australia… And you’re basically paying for ad removal of a metric ton of low quality content (and their music service, which isn’t as good as others I found)
That being said, this might not be true (I’ve seen lots of BS online regarding browsers in the past)
when the email came through for the price hike, I told my wife we should drop the family plan and use more advanced adblocking and invidous etc - apparently my demo didn’t pass the wife and children test… so guess who’s continuing to pay for YT Premium?
And it doesn’t remove promotions by the content creators, so you’re still seeing lots of ads. Still, since my kids spend so much time on YouTube I think it’s worth reducing the amount of brain washing, but I’m definitely not happy about the pricing. It’s ridiculous when you compare it to other streaming services who also have to produce or license their content.
It it legal? I remember when China’s 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 aren’t doing it here there should be a reason. (Apple appart)
Edit:guys what I’m saying matters the orthographic mistakes can be easily attribute to my lack of interest in writing the proper queen’s English when any shit will do
Na, I understood 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.
I haven’t 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.
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 can’t even get to the video in the first place.
is the developer the most used browser (chrome) and its open source skeleton (chromium) on which most of all of the other browsers are based on (edge, brave etc)
has the most used video platform online, with no close second (unless you count porn, but i’d still argue its not close)
has the biggest share of devices relying on its platform worldwide (android)
has the most used search engine worldwide.
Alphabet has to be split up. Alphabet alone is deciding what shape internet will take in the future.
is the developer the most used browser (chrome) and its open source skeleton (chromium) on which most of all of the other browsers are based on (edge, brave etc)
Which was branched from Apple’s open Webkit base, but let’s all also forget about that.
They take the IP of others, spin it a bit and then block everyone. Burn them down.
The inevitable fate of any useful software that’s not GPL.
When will people learn???
Edit: Ironically, KHTML was originally LGPL. So modifications to KHTML were required to be open source by the license, but Chrome itself isn’t required to be open source (at least as far as I understand it, I am not an expert here). Nevertheless, if it were stronger GPL, then it probably wouldn’t have been impossible to write features like DRM in chrome. So I would have been a bit of an idiot to say that KHTML isn’t GPL (because LGPL is a weaker version of GPL), but in effect, the outcome is the same - all because of that big fat L at the beginning.
They totally do though. You can ONLY use webkit on any iOS device. Chrome, Firefox, etc. they all are forced to use webkit on iOS. Neither Google or Apple are treating the web nicely, but at least you have a choice to use a different browser. Apple makes that effectively impossible.
Also you can’t really use Apple TV properly without an Apple device. Same with iCloud. Actually really any service they make only works properly with their full stack.
They didn’t do anything of the sort. We don’t need to endlessly recite the history of everything developed. If you want to call attention to it go right ahead but they didn’t give Apple a pass.
TBF I’ve seen a rare behavior in FF that makes some websites load slowly for no good reason (not an adblock thing). Anticompetitive either way but Google could be exploiting this bug.
This happens all the time to me on Android. Sites, especially Google searches, sometimes take 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. It’s frustrating when I’m in a rush.
I think you give them too much credit. From what I’ve seen, it’s just a setTimeout call for 5 seconds if you’re on Firefox, which is similar to what all those shady cookie popups from TrustArc do if you click “Reject all”.
Someone should investigate deeply. My combo of a whitelist firewall on an OpenWRT variant and Graphene often has a bandwidth issue that is clearly software related only after watching something from YT. I can stop the apps manually and close everything related to browsing and the connection issue still exists. I can disconnect the internet from my router and the problem still persists. However, if I shutdown all 3 devices for a few minutes and bring them up fresh, the network connection is flawless. Something is running in memory, and I believe it is related to YT, but I lack the skills to break it down further. I like to run an AI server and it is simply useless if anything on the network has connected to YT since booting.
I’ve also noticed when family is watching YT premium (not something I use) and I am downloading a LLM from HF, the internet bandwidth of our network more than doubles on my wired connection. In between the streaming packets from YT the speed on the download jumps massively. If family is watching YT, I can actually download a LLM faster. That just seems odd to me that those are connected.
I would recommend trimming all your custom configuration from your router/firewall, one change at a time, until you can no longer reproduce the issue.
Or go the other way around: set up a barebones configuration, confirm the issue is resolved, and begin adding one customization at a time until it breaks.
It sounds like you have a lot of stateful inspection configured. YouTube’s heavy usage of QUIC (i.e. UDP transport) may not play well with your config.
And, incidentally, what does your hardware look like?
Frankly, even the most barebones router should be able to handle YouTube. I am running pfSense in an ESXi VM, with passthru Intel gigabit NICs, 2 GB reserved RAM, and 2 vCPU (shared, but with higher priority than other VMs) on a Dell desktop with a second-gen i7 that was shipped from the factory in 2012.
Yes, I am routing on decade-old hardware. And I have never seen anything like what you are describing.
YouTube should “just work.”
I am going to assume that if you’re running OpenWRT, then you are probably using a typical consumer router? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Have you by any chance tried backing up your OpenWRT config and going back to stock firmware?
I know, I know, OpenWRT is great. I have a consumer router that I flashed with it to use strictly as a wireless AP.
But consumer devices flashed with vanilla OpenWRT tend to have very, very little resources left over to handle fun configurations.
And I have a feeling some of the fun configuration might be contributing to your issues.
After further investigation, apparently one of my routers 2.4G antennae is either held low or more likely fried. Sometimes the firmware is switching the working antenna more rapidly, enough to cause server outputs to look stable but other times it sticks on transmit or receive and doesn’t toggle. Gradio is apparently not robust enough to compensate for the inconsistent connection.
It sucks because the router is from PCWRT and the dude updates and maintains the router and supplies a simplified interface. I’ve used it for years. It looks like LUCY has come a long way since I used it last. I have a couple of the same routers as the PCWRT router I was going to flash with OpenWRT, but the documentation for flashing this model is terrible. I guess I am going to need to figure out something going forward now. …so yeah, maybe not YT.
Does that seem legitimate to you? There are many more implications below the surface with this. Yes, YT has little black boxes that cache content locally with ISPs that also means they are likely filtering all data. I don’t like that part, but I can live with it.
The idea that something is running on my device that seems to be hidden, but where I can stop the behavior by flushing the memory; that is extremely alarming. If I understand it correctly they have direct memory access for streaming video through h.264. Whatever they are doing is causing me to drop connections and impacting my WiFi signal stability even when offline doing tasks unrelated to YT. As soon as I reboot the problem is gone. I distrust them so much now that I do a hard reboot any time I watch YT. (It improves battery life as well.) This is criminal behavior if my speculative analysis is correct and they are running stuff like this in the background. I’m running a combo where I control every aspect of my network. This should not be happening in my circumstance.
Nobody can even state that it’s actually happening “for competitive browsers” as even Chrome users are reporting an unexplained lag/slowdown. At this point, it’s just wild speculation and bandwagoning.
There’s been multiple posts pointing to some possibly “wait for ads to finish loading” type code. It’s quite possible that it’s just bugged in Firefox etc since browsers are horrendously inconsistent etc.
But that doesn’t make a cool headline so instead the “it’s Google being evil” story is the popular one.
I’ve 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 using…
There’s also been many known performance issues in a lot of the APIs/libraries Google/YouTube use on Mozilla for many years. And Mozilla just hasn’t been able to keep up.
I don’t 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 there’s 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, I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion until there’s actually evidence of this being intentional. Especially when this smells a lot like a long standing different problem. “Someone said they are” is not going to convince me. Especially if you can’t even point to that someone saying that thing.
You 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.
They don’t need to put incriminating “if Firefox” statements in their code – the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.
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 it’s not some weird caching issue though
It’s not wild speculation as there is compelling, if incomplete, evidence. And to describe everyone’s reaction as “bandwagoning” 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.
“It happens all the time” and “they always do *” is also comically unhelpful and useless. I’m getting a pot/kettle vibe from those that seem to take offense at my comment.
Not all regions are served with the same scripts. That’s 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.
I’ve duplicated it on 4 machines across 3 OS’s (windows 11, macOS, steamOS). Glad you got lucky. I’m sure you’re also familiar with A/B testing but if not I’m happy to explain it.
It is absolutely possible there is a reasonable explanation but for you to say 1) nothing is happening and 2) it’s “bandwagoning” is, again, ridiculous. Especially if your evidence is “well mine is fine,” which is not acceptable troubleshooting procedure.
All I have left to say about Google and Youtube in particular is that Youtubes ads have become so problematic, both in amount and quality (like seriously, people get banned for using innocuous words in videos targeted at adult audiences, yet completely fucked up ads are squarely targeted at children) and at this point, it’s time for YouTube to die.
A new platform needs to come along.
Which will be hard since Google has such a stranglehold on the datacenter and backbone level that they have an absolute advantage when it comes to bandwidth and storage costs. Which is the main cost for video platforms like YouTube.
I think with everything that’s going on, self hosting will become kind of like a smartphone, everyone has a server. Then the creators host files, and you transcode them on your hardware
The only thing stopping a viable replacement for YouTube is the servers, google essentially has an infinite amount of server space, you would have to match them on that, decentralization would help bare the load, but there will become a time when even those servers will need to dramatically expand their server count.
Yeah, I don’t think people understand quite how astronomical an undertaking it is to replace this shit. People like to quote things like AWS, but AWS is a) expensive and b) general purpose. As such, it might be able to solve the problem, but not nearly as efficiently. It would cost you proportionally WAY MORE than Google is paying to keep YT alive, so that gives you an extra giant hurdle on top of the other complexity.
Web hosting with low latency is hard. Huge data storage is hard. Transcodinf is hard. Constant uptime is hard. Search is hard. Recommendations are hard. Making it profitable is hard. Starting an ad service that isn’t googles is hard. Convincing content creators to move there is hard. Convincing consumers to look there is hard. Sure, any of these problems have remotely comparable analogs. But you have to solve all of them simultaneously to get anywhere near competing with YouTube. And since Google owns the whole “stack”, it’s much cheaper for them then it’ll be for you.
Kick probably makes a decent comparison here. But they’re A) solving a subset of the problem B) fighting against a company that has extremely clear problems (arguably much worse than YouTube) C) is in a tech savvy-er demographic D) is funded by mega-casinos with tons of money and a vested interest in the product E) fighting in a market with less inertia so viewers and creators can move easier F) fighting twitch instead if YT which is smaller and younger.
And they’re still not really all that much competition.
I suspect this is less of a slowdown and more of a “we’re trying to detect adblockers and in Chrome we can do most of this check on the application level which is fast, while on Firefox we have to do it the extra slow way and we CBA to optimize any of it because the delay is to our advantage.”
It’s a standard timeout function without any context. Most likely thing is that it tries to load an ad and if that doesn’t work in these 5 seconds, then the anti adblock popup is displayed. If you don’t use an adblock, the site loads instantly cause the ad is detected. If you use ublock, you see neither the ad nor the popup, so everything that’s left is a 5 seconds timeout.
While it definitely is shady coding, it’s an anti adblock “feature” caused by incompetent design and not an anti Firefox thing.
It might be an anti Adblock feature caused by incompetent design, and it might be an anti Firefox thing. Or it might be something else altogether or some mixed version of the above. You don’t know, neither does anyone else.
Exactly, no one knows, but here we are on the 7th article saying Google is slowing down Firefox on purpose. That’s the least likely option by far. That would get them into multiple anti consumer and anti monopoly lawsuits while probably breaching their contract with FF at the same time. Alphabets board of advisors isn’t run by Elon musk, they know pretty much what they can get away with and wouldn’t be stupid enough to try something this big while they are already beeing monitored by the EU.
The articles clearly say that the cause is unclear and that it’s an ongoing controversy. If you had read the one for this thread you’d see that. They were very transparent about that.
You are the one here saying it’s definitely one way and not another.
it’s an anti adblock “feature” caused by incompetent design and not an anti Firefox thing.
Not quite in practice. I can’t say what they are doing, but I can say, there are 3 main web addresses that must be enabled in a whitelist firewall to view YT. If these are white listed, videos will load and play but half the time the connection is terrible. However, I never see a warning message about an ad blocker. They know the difference somehow. I don’t need to run an ad blocker because I run the ultimate undesired web connection blocker. They simply manipulate my connection and it impacts things on my network even when I am no longer connected to the internet at the router by removing the wired connection. (hard booting my server/router/devices solves the problem)
I’m honestly not willing to give them that much benefit of the doubt at this stage. But I also acknowledge we don’t have concrete evidence of deliberate sabotage.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
While this is abhorrent, I have to say in general Firefox is just painfully slow on mobile compared to other browsers. Don’t know what it’s doing but I stopped using it because it’s noticeably slow.
90% of the time I go to search something in Firefox it just straight up refuses to load anything and I have to close the tab and start another…
deleted by creator
This used to happen to me all the time but I think it randomly stopped.
Eh? I use it on my phone all the time, and it works just fine.
Yeah I’ve gone and deleted the cache and data then did a reinstall. Seems better now
Edit: nope still shit
Which phone do you use?
Doogee s96 pro.
Pixel 7 Pro on GrapheneOS
No issues. Been using Firefox on mobile and especially Linux since ever
Pixel 6 here, no issues.
Pixel 2 XL, also no issues or even any noticeable deltas between Chromium based browsers and Firefox.
I’m using Fold 5 and can tell a difference in scrolling performance between Samsung Internet and Firefox. There are also some issues regarding how the UI handles transition between folded to unfolded and vice versa.
This is a known issue
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1813844
Pixel 6 and Samsung A45 here Firefox is so fast I never had a complain or needed to use chrome or Samsung browser
The worst part is that a Youtube Premium Subscription costs more than Netflix or other streaming providers here in Australia… And you’re basically paying for ad removal of a metric ton of low quality content (and their music service, which isn’t as good as others I found)
That being said, this might not be true (I’ve seen lots of BS online regarding browsers in the past)
when the email came through for the price hike, I told my wife we should drop the family plan and use more advanced adblocking and invidous etc - apparently my demo didn’t pass the wife and children test… so guess who’s continuing to pay for YT Premium?
Can you ditch the wife and kids?
J/K
That’s actually my suggestion. Clearly the wife is nuts
And it doesn’t remove promotions by the content creators, so you’re still seeing lots of ads. Still, since my kids spend so much time on YouTube I think it’s worth reducing the amount of brain washing, but I’m definitely not happy about the pricing. It’s ridiculous when you compare it to other streaming services who also have to produce or license their content.
How about seeing YouTube adverts to then watch a video that’s entirely an advertisement for the company that’s sponsoring the YouTuber.
That’s been the case since Chrome was released.
It it legal? I remember when China’s 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 aren’t doing it here there should be a reason. (Apple appart)
Edit:guys what I’m saying matters the orthographic mistakes can be easily attribute to my lack of interest in writing the proper queen’s English when any shit will do
I’m sorry to be the spelling guy but it’s “forbid” not “phorbid”
Hahaha ce la vi
Do you have poor spelling fobia?
I’m sorry to be the spelling guy but it’s “phobia” not “fobia”
Woosh goes the joke over your head. ✈️
I think they got it and didn’t give a phuck.
Na, I understood 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.
iwouldfightforyou.jpg
Keep phighting the good phight ✊
I’m sorry to be the spelling guy but it’s “Whoosh” knot “Woosh”
Again? I remember they did this years ago when releasing Chrome.
If it’s happening it’s not doing so for everyone. I use Firefox and I have never seen this delay.
I’d seen it in my Firefox/Win10 + uBlockO setup. I just used yt-dlp and then a uBlock “quick fixes” update sorted it.
I haven’t 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.
They do it so we gaslight the people that have it and then it’s 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 can’t even get to the video in the first place.
Same.
The anti-adblock warnings only lasted a few days for me too, not seen them for a couple of weeks now.
Been 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 don’t watch a ton of YouTube, but I haven’t noticed any real issues, and I use an ad blocker.
Surely this is against anti-trust laws.
Imagine if Microsoft slowed down everything that wasn’t on their services, it’s insane.
So Alphabet:
is the developer the most used browser (chrome) and its open source skeleton (chromium) on which most of all of the other browsers are based on (edge, brave etc)
has the most used video platform online, with no close second (unless you count porn, but i’d still argue its not close)
has the biggest share of devices relying on its platform worldwide (android)
has the most used search engine worldwide.
Alphabet has to be split up. Alphabet alone is deciding what shape internet will take in the future.
Which was branched from Apple’s open Webkit base, but let’s all also forget about that.
They take the IP of others, spin it a bit and then block everyone. Burn them down.
Acting like Apple didn’t do the same thing with khtml to make WebKit.
The inevitable fate of any useful software that’s not GPL.
When will people learn???
Edit: Ironically, KHTML was originally LGPL. So modifications to KHTML were required to be open source by the license, but Chrome itself isn’t required to be open source (at least as far as I understand it, I am not an expert here). Nevertheless, if it were stronger GPL, then it probably wouldn’t have been impossible to write features like DRM in chrome. So I would have been a bit of an idiot to say that KHTML isn’t GPL (because LGPL is a weaker version of GPL), but in effect, the outcome is the same - all because of that big fat L at the beginning.
deleted by creator
They totally do though. You can ONLY use webkit on any iOS device. Chrome, Firefox, etc. they all are forced to use webkit on iOS. Neither Google or Apple are treating the web nicely, but at least you have a choice to use a different browser. Apple makes that effectively impossible.
deleted by creator
I want Firefox (with its engine, not webkit) on my phone. With Apple that’s not possible
deleted by creator
Also you can’t really use Apple TV properly without an Apple device. Same with iCloud. Actually really any service they make only works properly with their full stack.
They didn’t do anything of the sort. We don’t need to endlessly recite the history of everything developed. If you want to call attention to it go right ahead but they didn’t give Apple a pass.
All of those are meaningless peanuts versus
My long bet: The EU will force Google Search + Ads, to separate from Youtube within a decade.
God bless the EU. Actually protecting its consumers
TBF I’ve seen a rare behavior in FF that makes some websites load slowly for no good reason (not an adblock thing). Anticompetitive either way but Google could be exploiting this bug.
This happens all the time to me on Android. Sites, especially Google searches, sometimes take 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. It’s frustrating when I’m in a rush.
I think you give them too much credit. From what I’ve seen, it’s just a setTimeout call for 5 seconds if you’re on Firefox, which is similar to what all those shady cookie popups from TrustArc do if you click “Reject all”.
Someone should investigate deeply. My combo of a whitelist firewall on an OpenWRT variant and Graphene often has a bandwidth issue that is clearly software related only after watching something from YT. I can stop the apps manually and close everything related to browsing and the connection issue still exists. I can disconnect the internet from my router and the problem still persists. However, if I shutdown all 3 devices for a few minutes and bring them up fresh, the network connection is flawless. Something is running in memory, and I believe it is related to YT, but I lack the skills to break it down further. I like to run an AI server and it is simply useless if anything on the network has connected to YT since booting.
I’ve also noticed when family is watching YT premium (not something I use) and I am downloading a LLM from HF, the internet bandwidth of our network more than doubles on my wired connection. In between the streaming packets from YT the speed on the download jumps massively. If family is watching YT, I can actually download a LLM faster. That just seems odd to me that those are connected.
Sometimes, less is more.
I would recommend trimming all your custom configuration from your router/firewall, one change at a time, until you can no longer reproduce the issue.
Or go the other way around: set up a barebones configuration, confirm the issue is resolved, and begin adding one customization at a time until it breaks.
How do your bufferbloat tests look?
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat
It sounds like you have a lot of stateful inspection configured. YouTube’s heavy usage of QUIC (i.e. UDP transport) may not play well with your config.
And, incidentally, what does your hardware look like?
Frankly, even the most barebones router should be able to handle YouTube. I am running pfSense in an ESXi VM, with passthru Intel gigabit NICs, 2 GB reserved RAM, and 2 vCPU (shared, but with higher priority than other VMs) on a Dell desktop with a second-gen i7 that was shipped from the factory in 2012.
Yes, I am routing on decade-old hardware. And I have never seen anything like what you are describing.
YouTube should “just work.”
I am going to assume that if you’re running OpenWRT, then you are probably using a typical consumer router? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Have you by any chance tried backing up your OpenWRT config and going back to stock firmware?
I know, I know, OpenWRT is great. I have a consumer router that I flashed with it to use strictly as a wireless AP.
But consumer devices flashed with vanilla OpenWRT tend to have very, very little resources left over to handle fun configurations.
And I have a feeling some of the fun configuration might be contributing to your issues.
After further investigation, apparently one of my routers 2.4G antennae is either held low or more likely fried. Sometimes the firmware is switching the working antenna more rapidly, enough to cause server outputs to look stable but other times it sticks on transmit or receive and doesn’t toggle. Gradio is apparently not robust enough to compensate for the inconsistent connection.
It sucks because the router is from PCWRT and the dude updates and maintains the router and supplies a simplified interface. I’ve used it for years. It looks like LUCY has come a long way since I used it last. I have a couple of the same routers as the PCWRT router I was going to flash with OpenWRT, but the documentation for flashing this model is terrible. I guess I am going to need to figure out something going forward now. …so yeah, maybe not YT.
When your layer 1 problem turns into a layer 3 problem 😅
Maybe your ISP has some sort of agreement with yt?
Does that seem legitimate to you? There are many more implications below the surface with this. Yes, YT has little black boxes that cache content locally with ISPs that also means they are likely filtering all data. I don’t like that part, but I can live with it.
The idea that something is running on my device that seems to be hidden, but where I can stop the behavior by flushing the memory; that is extremely alarming. If I understand it correctly they have direct memory access for streaming video through h.264. Whatever they are doing is causing me to drop connections and impacting my WiFi signal stability even when offline doing tasks unrelated to YT. As soon as I reboot the problem is gone. I distrust them so much now that I do a hard reboot any time I watch YT. (It improves battery life as well.) This is criminal behavior if my speculative analysis is correct and they are running stuff like this in the background. I’m running a combo where I control every aspect of my network. This should not be happening in my circumstance.
That’s odd
Is this arguably anticompetitive and illegal?
Nobody can even state that it’s actually happening “for competitive browsers” as even Chrome users are reporting an unexplained lag/slowdown. At this point, it’s just wild speculation and bandwagoning.
There’s been multiple posts pointing to some possibly “wait for ads to finish loading” type code. It’s quite possible that it’s just bugged in Firefox etc since browsers are horrendously inconsistent etc.
But that doesn’t make a cool headline so instead the “it’s Google being evil” story is the popular one.
it was already made public in the lawsuit some weeks ago that they are indeed slowing down youtube for firefox.
Source?
I’ve 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 using…
There’s also been many known performance issues in a lot of the APIs/libraries Google/YouTube use on Mozilla for many years. And Mozilla just hasn’t been able to keep up.
I don’t 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 there’s 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, I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion until there’s actually evidence of this being intentional. Especially when this smells a lot like a long standing different problem. “Someone said they are” is not going to convince me. Especially if you can’t even point to that someone saying that thing.
Link?
You absolutely can tell what’s happening by reading the source code. They are using a listener and a delay for when
ontimeupdatepromise is not met, which timeouts the entire connection for 5 full seconds.https://pastebin.com/TqjzbqQE
Can I have ublock block that? It seems simple enough to extract that code out.
Well, at least I learned that javascript understands exponential notation. I never even bothered to try that lol
I’m sorry but I don’t see how that check is browser-specific. Is that part happening on the browser side?
They don’t need to put incriminating “if Firefox” statements in their code – the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.
I guess his question is “is that happening?”
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 it’s not some weird caching issue though
Yeah, and also Edge or an older version of Chrome etc just to be sure.
deleted by creator
I don’t know, nor am I speculating. The person I was replying to said they didn’t see a browser check in the code, which isn’t enough to dismiss it.
It’s not wild speculation as there is compelling, if incomplete, evidence. And to describe everyone’s reaction as “bandwagoning” 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.
“works fine on my machine lol” is unhelpful and useless.
It’s very well known that Google makes heavy use of a/b testing. They did it with the adblock block and they’re doing it with this
“It happens all the time” and “they always do *” is also comically unhelpful and useless. I’m getting a pot/kettle vibe from those that seem to take offense at my comment.
deleted by creator
Not all regions are served with the same scripts. That’s 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.
I’ve duplicated it on 4 machines across 3 OS’s (windows 11, macOS, steamOS). Glad you got lucky. I’m sure you’re also familiar with A/B testing but if not I’m happy to explain it.
It is absolutely possible there is a reasonable explanation but for you to say 1) nothing is happening and 2) it’s “bandwagoning” is, again, ridiculous. Especially if your evidence is “well mine is fine,” which is not acceptable troubleshooting procedure.
All I have left to say about Google and Youtube in particular is that Youtubes ads have become so problematic, both in amount and quality (like seriously, people get banned for using innocuous words in videos targeted at adult audiences, yet completely fucked up ads are squarely targeted at children) and at this point, it’s time for YouTube to die.
A new platform needs to come along.
Which will be hard since Google has such a stranglehold on the datacenter and backbone level that they have an absolute advantage when it comes to bandwidth and storage costs. Which is the main cost for video platforms like YouTube.
I think with everything that’s going on, self hosting will become kind of like a smartphone, everyone has a server. Then the creators host files, and you transcode them on your hardware
Not gonna happen
The only thing stopping a viable replacement for YouTube is the servers, google essentially has an infinite amount of server space, you would have to match them on that, decentralization would help bare the load, but there will become a time when even those servers will need to dramatically expand their server count.
It’s not just storage capacity either. Google uses custom silicon just to keep up with all the transcoding.
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/new-era-video-infrastructure/
At the time that article was released (April 2021), users were uploading over 500 hours of video per minute.
Yeah, I don’t think people understand quite how astronomical an undertaking it is to replace this shit. People like to quote things like AWS, but AWS is a) expensive and b) general purpose. As such, it might be able to solve the problem, but not nearly as efficiently. It would cost you proportionally WAY MORE than Google is paying to keep YT alive, so that gives you an extra giant hurdle on top of the other complexity.
Web hosting with low latency is hard. Huge data storage is hard. Transcodinf is hard. Constant uptime is hard. Search is hard. Recommendations are hard. Making it profitable is hard. Starting an ad service that isn’t googles is hard. Convincing content creators to move there is hard. Convincing consumers to look there is hard. Sure, any of these problems have remotely comparable analogs. But you have to solve all of them simultaneously to get anywhere near competing with YouTube. And since Google owns the whole “stack”, it’s much cheaper for them then it’ll be for you.
Kick probably makes a decent comparison here. But they’re A) solving a subset of the problem B) fighting against a company that has extremely clear problems (arguably much worse than YouTube) C) is in a tech savvy-er demographic D) is funded by mega-casinos with tons of money and a vested interest in the product E) fighting in a market with less inertia so viewers and creators can move easier F) fighting twitch instead if YT which is smaller and younger.
And they’re still not really all that much competition.
I suspect this is less of a slowdown and more of a “we’re trying to detect adblockers and in Chrome we can do most of this check on the application level which is fast, while on Firefox we have to do it the extra slow way and we CBA to optimize any of it because the delay is to our advantage.”
Nope, in the article it shows a hard coded 5 second delay.
It’s a standard timeout function without any context. Most likely thing is that it tries to load an ad and if that doesn’t work in these 5 seconds, then the anti adblock popup is displayed. If you don’t use an adblock, the site loads instantly cause the ad is detected. If you use ublock, you see neither the ad nor the popup, so everything that’s left is a 5 seconds timeout.
While it definitely is shady coding, it’s an anti adblock “feature” caused by incompetent design and not an anti Firefox thing.
It might be an anti Adblock feature caused by incompetent design, and it might be an anti Firefox thing. Or it might be something else altogether or some mixed version of the above. You don’t know, neither does anyone else.
Exactly, no one knows, but here we are on the 7th article saying Google is slowing down Firefox on purpose. That’s the least likely option by far. That would get them into multiple anti consumer and anti monopoly lawsuits while probably breaching their contract with FF at the same time. Alphabets board of advisors isn’t run by Elon musk, they know pretty much what they can get away with and wouldn’t be stupid enough to try something this big while they are already beeing monitored by the EU.
The articles clearly say that the cause is unclear and that it’s an ongoing controversy. If you had read the one for this thread you’d see that. They were very transparent about that.
You are the one here saying it’s definitely one way and not another.
Not quite in practice. I can’t say what they are doing, but I can say, there are 3 main web addresses that must be enabled in a whitelist firewall to view YT. If these are white listed, videos will load and play but half the time the connection is terrible. However, I never see a warning message about an ad blocker. They know the difference somehow. I don’t need to run an ad blocker because I run the ultimate undesired web connection blocker. They simply manipulate my connection and it impacts things on my network even when I am no longer connected to the internet at the router by removing the wired connection. (hard booting my server/router/devices solves the problem)
If thats the case then they still are not able to do it even with the delay cuz they havent blocked me yet
I’m honestly not willing to give them that much benefit of the doubt at this stage. But I also acknowledge we don’t have concrete evidence of deliberate sabotage.