• DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    173
    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
        14
        arrow-down
        49
        ·
        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
          41
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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.

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            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
              9
              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                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
                5
                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
      23
      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
        24
        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
          29
          ·
          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
            0
            ·
            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.

        • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          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
            5
            ·
            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.

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

          What’s your field?

          I’m in a DevOps/Cloud Engineer role and DDG works better for me than Google. No ads and somehow fewer of the gpt generated fake help articles.

        • 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.

      • 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?

      • 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.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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

        • 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.

          • 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?

          • 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

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      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
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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.

      • JonEFive
        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
            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.

  • Epzillon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    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
              0
              ·
              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
    54
    ·
    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
      46
      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
        6
        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
                  ·
                  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.

          • 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.

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    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
        20
        ·
        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
          15
          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
        15
        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
            7
            ·
            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
            5
            ·
            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
              3
              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
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

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

  • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      8
      ·
      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
          0
          ·
          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
      3
      ·
      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

    • YoorWeb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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
        3
        ·
        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
      2
      ·
      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
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    11 months ago

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

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

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      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
      2
      ·
      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
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      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
        5
        ·
        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
          3
          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.

      • CrowAirbrush@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        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.

  • ShaunaTheDead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It might just be a coincidence but I’ve had a lot of trouble using Invidious or Piped lately too. Videos load and titles load, but video thumbnails don’t load for me.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’ve had issues with Invidious and Piped literally every time I’ve tried to use them. Can’t understand how people even use the public servers.

      However I have disabled Piped proxy in LibreTube and been using that for a long while but for the last week or so it hasn’t been working at all.

      GrayJay is still working though.

      • spez@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        There was a problem with DASH. Now it’s fixed, it should work with the proxy enabled.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          As I said, it’s never worked with the proxy enabled. And it’s still not working with it disabled, right now.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s the same with all the other frontends (LibReddit, Nitter, etc.). They never work and everyone is just like “try a different instance!”. How many dozen different instances should I try before I give up?

          Shout out to Stealth (Reddit) and Squawker (Twitter), those both work the vast majority of the time without any “instances” to depend on or switch through.

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Google is blocking popular instances these days, so yeah, you basically need to find an unpopular instance, which usually means it’s new and may not live for long, or it will quickly become popular, because it works, which will cause Google to block it.

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

            I tried it and my main complaint was it was like 720p, so lower quality (noticeable to me just looking at it). But it “just worked” for me. But I’m also not interested in YouTube enough to play this game - if they block me, I stop going there. It seems like they give up blocking me every so often (or something updates IDK).

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

            there’s a browser extension called libredirect that has a keyboard shortcut to switch between instances. you can also use freetube/newpipe/mpv.

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

            Good to know about Stealth. Thanks!

            Yeah I might try the others a couple more times before giving up but it’s not gone well for me thusfar. Libreddit and invidious worked for me for like 4 days last time, both crapped out about the same time. It’s annoying to have to repeatedly troubleshoot what used to be something you could basically count on working

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Steelmanning: perhaps no ARM Linux system was capable of playing 4K reliably until Asahi Linux came along?

    • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      11 months ago

      Someone on the Hacker News cross-post mentioned it, but it seems like they assumed any ARM Linux device that wasn’t detected as running Android was some low-power device like a Raspberry Pi, and didn’t anticipate more powerful devices running bog-standard Linux until Apple Silicon and thus Asahi came along.

    • whfsdude@dmv.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s probably the case that this was good intent given the lack of desktop ARM computing hardware, but they really should let the client decide the video quality.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        True, but I would guess that the clients didn’t handle that well and this was just a stupid quick fix.