Google slows down Firefox users when watching YouTube…

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know everyone wants to be mad, and I’m no fan of Google. But this is almost certainly an unintentional bug.

    Google, more than anything, wants watch hours for ad money. They don’t want you frustrated by the alow ux. They want you watching advertisements.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could believe this, but if google doesn’t want me to be frustrated on youtube, why do they make it so annoying?

      Pushing youtubetv in annoying new ways, putting ads in the middle of songs, serving ads with frustrating frequency, using multiple types of ads so your brain can’t just tune out until you hit skip, locking basic functions like add to playlist behind premium accounts.

      From their behavior it sure looks like they want me to be annoyed.

      • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They want you making money from them. So watching ads and paying subscription fees. If you aren’t doing either of those things, you’re causing them to lose money. So yeah, they’re gonna make it annoying.

    • Perfide@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      wants watch hours for ad money

      Ads which can still be blocked fairly easily on Firefox, unlike in Chrome, which is banning ublock(& likely all other blockers) browser-wide next year. They want to make the firefox experience worse so people have a reason to go back to their ad infested browser.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they are able to make you switch, you become a heck of a lot more profitable long term as they’re able to collect a loooot more data

    • Bremmy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately not. It’s intentional as someone else looked to the explanation below

    • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably connected to them forcing v3 on chrome soon, which will gimp down completely ublock on chrome.

  • Extras@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Might be a very dumb financial decision but maybe it’s time to rethink that whole google search contract renewal coming up in a year or so. Feeling like a toxic relationship

    Edit: the time frame is just an assumption due to it being a 3 year contract made in 2020. I would try to seek a relationship with bing tbh, it sucks with privacy but would be a kick to google’s balls. Plus the majority of firefox users who start giving a crap about their privacy, change to duckduckgo in the beginning of their journey so it wont be a massive shift from bing imo in terms of searching experience.

    • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The biggest problem is the loss of users that that incurs… it would be long term damage for temporary financial boost. I think they already tried once to switch to yahoo and it was an unmitigated disaster

      • Extras@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah I expect that would be the case but I honestly think out of all the other longterm rivals with deep pockets, bing is firefox’s best chance of maintaining most of it’s current userbase and maybe even growing it in the longterm especially if bing ai’s features keep expanding. Else why would bard be a thing if google didn’t feel a bit threatened. Again just my thoughts would like to hear what other opinions are out there.

        Edit: would also be a big win for microsoft since a respectable browser is now using it’s search engine and not just a butt of the joke like edge is, so maybe firefox can leveage a good chunk of change from them to keep their browser running for a while unlike the deal they did with google. Think it would ultimately destroy edge though but since edge can now be user uninstalled thats bound to happen in a couple of years anyways and with this deal bing will still get some traffic so still a win for microsoft.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google paying them an absolute shitload of money (still pretty small compared to what Google pays Apple). It’d be pretty hard to get the donations to make up a missing half billion.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah, even more reason for me to use less Youtube.

    Been substituting it with Nebula, Odysee, and just watching less video content.

    • MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      @BombOmOm @furycd001
      I am sort of in a content slump right now. The YouTube adblocker blocker has me watching much less and noticing the content actually kinda sucks.

      Most news sites are either paywalled or adblocked blocked or so stuffed with ads it’s unreadable.

      Even my library app doesn’t have books newer than like 2019.

      This DRM shit totally sucks.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What ad blocker are you using? I’m using ublock origin and I still haven’t seen the ad blocker blocker thing on anything.

        • MylesRyden@social.vivaldi.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @Fosheze
          I use PiHole at home for sytem wide blocking and Vivaldi as my main browser.

          I get the adblocker blocker on my main google account, but I have a couple of others for hobbies and I have not seen the blocker there.

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

            Even though Pi hole doesn’t block youtube ads, that’s probably what is triggering the ad blocker blocker. Unfortunately I don’t know a way around that but I’m sure someone in one of the pihole communities has figured it out.

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

            Vivaldi looks like it supports extensions. Try out UBlock Origin for it. I use that add-on and a PiHole and have had no issues.

      • H3L1X@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am in a similar situation. I did just start using RSS and that has been interesting. Nice to get everything in one spot, with no ads, and it’s specifically what I’m interested in.

    • krigo666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Try FreeTube viewer, still in alpha but already works great. You can create profiles with the channels you want in each one.

      https://freetubeapp.io

      On mobile (Android) you have NewPipe, GrayJay or SkyTube.

  • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Guys relax. Most of the ‘research’ comes from this reddit post: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/k9w3ei4/

    It points out following code in youtube’s polymer script:

    setTimeout(function() {
        c();
        a.resolve(1)
     }, 5E3);
    

    But exactly this code does show up on a stock installation of chrome too, and it does not check for the user agent. One of the responses goes a bit deeper into what the code above could do: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/whenever_i_open_a_youtube_video_in_a_new_tab_its/ka08uqj/

    It is rather clear, that this code is not aimed at firefox users to slow down their loading time.

    • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is rather clear, that this code is not aimed at firefox users to slow down their loading time.

      alternatively it’s just well designed

      • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know that you are memeing - but some ppl probably don’t have the background to see the difference.

        A ping does not contain a http header containing a user agent. The response to a ping is not a webpage - and even if it was, your console won’t execute the JS.

  • verysoft@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Mine instantly loads. Perhaps there’s some other stuff going on with hardware/software or something this person is running?

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I use YT every day and use Firefox as my main browser. I’ve never experienced this. Just tested out of curiosity, it loads fine.

    • oatscoop@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ve experienced this issue firsthand, although it’s more like 3 to 4 seconds. Changing the user agent to Chrome causes videos to load instantly, and restoring it to the original user agent causes the “lag”.

      Some possibly relevant information: I’m running Firefox with unlock Origin on Linux Mint. I’ve also received the “playback will be disabled after 3 videos” message in the past – so it’s possibly only affecting users they strongly suspect are still using ad-blockers with workarounds.

    • buzziebee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah it appears on chrome as well. There isn’t any evidence that it’s purposely “slowing down” anything. I had a quick glance at the Reddit thread (been avoiding it as much as possible, but had to visit in incognito to confirm the source for this outrage) and it looks like it’s part of a small script to check if an adblocker is present and disabling video ads from playing.

      It’s possible FF have a delay in playing that first video, but also the test methodology isn’t super reliable because of caching.

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just typical sensationalized bullshit with people jumping to conclusions based off random ass Reddit threads. This apparently originated from the linus tech tips forums so it’s probably straight bs.

    • massive_bereavement@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Freetube has been the biggest life improvement on how I consume YouTube. The fact that it gets better recommendations and I can list my subscriptions in an easy way, even import them is something I miss in all the rest of alternatives.

        • massive_bereavement@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then I use someone else’s laptop or phone and see the amount of ads everywhere and how much time is taking away from them.
          How can one put up with that…

        • verysoft@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’d use FreeTube, but the quality was not as good as on YouTube itself, has that changed?

          • I don’t know. For any given video? I’ve seen high res options, but TBH I don’t watch much on YT - certainly not movies, or anything that’d really matter - and don’t pay much attention to it.

            It’s free, if you want to check out how the current version works.

            • verysoft@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yeah, just gave it a shot. I’m just too accustomed to YTs quality that the drop just isn’t worth to me, at least while I’m still not ad-block blocked.

                • verysoft@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It only supports up to 1080p/60fps, most videos I watch these days have 1440p or more, so the increased bitrate immediately makes the videos look a lot more crisp. For just a side to side 1080p comparison, there isn’t much difference, just some more artifacting on the edges of things (not really that noticable). Maybe due to the YT stream being VP9 and FreeTube AVC? I don’t really know to be honest.

    • Dumbkid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can I set this up so I can still browse my YouTube recommended and only redirect when I select the actual video?

      • NewPipe is an Android app that allows you to watch YouTube videos without ads or tracking. It exposes your IP to Google servers though. Piped consists of a web client and a backend server, it uses the NewPipeExtractor on the server to load the video as well as all the metadata from Google servers and then serves it to you through the web client. That way, you don’t have to connect to Google, only the Piped server communicates with YouTube servers.

  • CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder what would happen if Google manages to destroy itself with increasing shenanigans like this.

    I mean, so much of digital based stuff relies on them for some extent.

  • middlemanSI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    First thing that comes to mind is user agent spoofer. Anyway I say let them, it’s their company with userbase content and it’s based in US. They can do whatever they want with it because terms of service. I can just look at my sexy John Oliver poster on the wall for 30 min and replace their service.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If we all go ahead and spoof our user agents to Chrome, Google will say ‘No one uses Firefox’. Use better solutions like Invidious and Piped in combination wit LibRedirect instead.

        Do these pass through the user agent to YouTube? Otherwise they’ll have the same issue with Firefox being underrepresented.

        • YouTube doesn’t actually throttle the video stream on the server, they just use some JavaScript on their official website that adds delay to the playback when Firefox is detected. The Invidious client directly connects to Google servers for video streaming, but it just displays the raw video stream without any ads, artificial delay or any crap like that.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I was replying to this part of the comment:

            If we all go ahead and spoof our user agents to Chrome, Google will say ‘No one uses Firefox’.

            If the alternatives don’t use a Firefox user-agent, it’ll also have the same effect in reducing the amount of Firefox traffic in their logs.

            I edited my comment a bit to clarify :)

            • If the alternatives don’t use a Firefox user-agent, it’ll also have the same effect in reducing the amount of Firefox traffic in their logs.

              When you stream a video from Google servers through the Invidious frontend and you use Firefox, the user-agent that gets reported to googlevideo.com (the domain that the requests for YouTube video streams are sent to) is Firefox. You can easily verify that yourself, go to an Invidious instance using Firefox, make sure to disable ‘Proxy videos’ in the Invidious settings, open the Developer Tools, go the Network tab and load a video. Click on any request to *.googlevideo.com and look at the user-agent, you can see, it’s a Firefox user-agent. This thread explains how the slowdown is introduced in YouTube JavaScript:

              Using Invidious avoids this.

              • dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wow! I thought it was a bug, but that code does it intentionally. Amazing.

                • Obviously it’s intentional, it’s Google, what do you expect from this piece of shit Big Tech corporation? Don’t be evil has already belonged to the past for a long time.

    • GrapesOfAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s actually how the discovered this, user agent was changed to chrome and it was no longer slowed down