YouTube thinks aarch64 Firefox is… a HiSense TV!!!
Ah yes, televisions are exactly where the user wants lower resolution
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.
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.
There are qualities that are useful for having different responses, like supported language, whether the browser accepts gzipped content, etc.
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
So if I type in “google.com” what language should the front page be in?
First language in Accept-Language header that server also support
Yeah, User Agent is also a header, which the other guy is saying shouldn’t exist.
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.
Who said anything about English?
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.
My main point with that bit was that a lot of content exists on the internet without any translated versions and the world hasn’t ended because of this, look at non English Lemmy instances.
The issue is that some of those techniques are only useful after the client has rendered the content rather than before.
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.
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.
That’s in separate headers
Bot
Bot
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.
doesnt ublock origin already block youtube’s anti adblock?
Nope, I still got it after a while
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.
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.
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.
Nope, I use Librewolf with uBlock Origin, uMatrix and BitWarden. Nothing else.
But yes, I haven’t seen it in quite some time now.
If you get it, purge and update your cache. It still works.
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.
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…
Even after clearing the cache from the ublock filter settings?
Fuck Google.
Searching a tracking number from Chrome using Google? Finds a package.
Same search on Google from Firefox leads to nothing.
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.
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.
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
Works perfectly fine for trouble shooting complicated IT problems.
It’s stupid we need an extension to fix this on mobile devices but there’s an extension to fix this on mobile devices
I get results with DDG
I like how nobody actually bothered to read the thread and doesn’t understand this is a bug and wasn’t done on purpose.
Having bugs for platforms outside the walled garden is a feature of the walled garden. That’s the beauty of it, they don’t need to purposefully cripple Firefox and other engines if they just don’t take it into account when creating features.
How is Youtube a walled garden? It’s a website.
Quite a reductive statement based on a very small obscured window into what Google is doing with user agent profiling but go off I guess since you’re so sure
It’s not. First of all, the code doesn’t check for Firefox at all. Second, it blocks 4K for all Android devices. Conclusions people came up with here just show utter ignorance.
Google has teams of highly paid expert engineers who’s entire job is to maintain and develop youTube. What do you think is more likely:
- Google’s engineers were unable to tell that performance in Firefox is degraded by their changes.
- Google sees it as advantageous to disadvantage their competitors - including Firefox. And although they might not be able to do it deliberately, for legal reasons, they can still do it by introducing platform specific changes and strategically neglecting to make it work properly.
I mean, Google’s engineers also recently lost six months worth of a lot of people’s Google Drive files, so, honestly, anything’s possible.
Have you actually checked the code? It doesn’t target Firefox at all. Man…
Are they determining that Forefox is Hisense TV on purpose? Again, read the linked thread for a change.
Shhhh. We’re hating on YouTube as we want ad free videos but don’t want to pay for it and we’re hoping that bitching about it on a tiny social media platform will somehow get Google to pivot their entire business model.
We don’t need no facts here.
Did YouTube make all of those videos? If not, then how much should YouTube get from hosting them? This whole argument that people just want free shit isn’t just wrong, it’s also annoying. People have proven time and again that we’re willing to pay for quality and convenience. And not in that order. Once again it’s an issue about access, how they’re fighting tooth and nail to gatekeep that access to continue to control the flow of capital so they can also play the kingmakers in digital media. Messages like yours are so off base that it’s hard to believe you’re not projecting your own shitty world view, but also somehow think that because you’ll gargle some shitty ads every once in a while that you have some moral high ground. AKA; one of those people who believe they’re right and that’s all that matters and you don’t actually have to think any deeper. PS: I hope I’m wrong. Please feel free to correct my own world view if I am.
My local supermarket isn’t producing most of the products it has on its shelves, so fuck them too I guess.
Good counter-point, except that your local supermarket has to respect three separate market pressures that Google (edit: to be clear, I mean YouTube) clearly has no regard for:
- Tight regulations.
- Respecting its consumers.
- Robust competition that isn’t prone to monopolistic enterprise.
So no, I don’t feel that we should ‘fuck them, too I guess’ because when I go to the supermarket I feel like I’m the customer, not the product. I feel that I get what I’m paying for and that my time is respected. Nothing about YouTube leaves me feeling like that. There’s no sense that I’m a respected customer and therein no sense that there’s any value in trying to respect a clearly one-sided relationship.
Did YouTube make all of those videos?
Nobody is claiming they did
If not, then how much should YouTube get from hosting them?
Whatever the free market will pay. Like with any other product.
This whole argument that people just want free shit isn’t just wrong, it’s also annoying.
A paid option is available to those who find the ads annoying.
Those who refuse to pay and try to block the ads are freeloading. Simple as that.
People have proven time and again that we’re willing to pay for quality and convenience.
And yet here we are. Yet again on Lemmy. Yet again with the crybabies wanting ad-free and cost-free shit without considering that someone somewhere has to pay for it. Google is not a charity.
Once again it’s an issue about access, how they’re fighting tooth and nail to gatekeep that access
What? Competitors exist. YouTube is free for nearly everyone.
You are free to use the alternatives if you disagree with how YouTube works.
That’s how the free market works; nobody has a gun to your head.
Messages like yours are so off base that it’s hard to believe you’re not projecting your own shitty world view, but also somehow think that because you’ll gargle some shitty ads every once in a while that you have some moral high ground.
I pay for premium. I’m happy to pay for content I enjoy and I’m happy that the creators I enjoy watching get a cut without me having to watch annoying adverts.
I do not expect handouts. There is nothing “shitty” about paying for things.
Maybe tone down the extremism and personal attacks against a stranger, huh?
AKA; one of those people who believe they’re right and that’s all that matters and you don’t actually have to think any deeper.
🥱
And yet here we are. Yet again on Lemmy. Yet again with the crybabies wanting ad-free and cost-free shit without considering that someone somewhere has to pay for it. Google is not a charity.
I was tempted to state that I was wrong, clearly you have thought about this, but I don’t agree with this perspective at all and won’t be changing my opinion. If we’re in the business of calling things out that “nobody said,” then nobody said Google was a charity.
That’s how the free market works; nobody has a gun to your head.
The ‘nobody has a gun to your head’ approach to laissez-faire mercantilism likes to ignore how important free market access is. Lack of access can be just as bad as a gun to the head, if not sometimes worse. This is a one sided argument in favor of corporatism that doesn’t address access. The main thrust of my point.
I pay for premium. I’m happy to pay for content I enjoy and I’m happy that the creators I enjoy watching get a cut without me having to watch annoying adverts. I do not expect handouts. There is nothing “shitty” about paying for things.
I don’t think YouTube has ever left me feeling like it had any regard for me as a consumer or even valued my time. It appears, from the many complaints I’ve seen by YouTube content creators, that many of them don’t feel valued or respected either. By the time Premium came along it had long lost me as an interested customer. There’s no feeling that one should honor a one-sided social contract because that requires an actual relationship. If I felt that YouTube actually cared about anything other than being the middle-man that ensures that I get served ads, and demands–but not delivers–respect for it, then maybe I would reconsider. Until then, I will enjoy their competing products. Ad-Blockers and supporting alternative hosting sites that make me feel more valued. They’ve assisted in creating their own black-market for ad-avoidance, and that’s the free market working.
Maybe tone down the extremism and personal attacks against a stranger, huh?
🥱
I was tempted to state that I was wrong, clearly you have thought about this, but I don’t agree with this perspective at all and won’t be changing my opinion.
I guess we’re done here then.
The ‘nobody has a gun to your head’ approach to laissez-faire mercantilism likes to ignore how important free market access is.
Oh, were still going. Okay.
Erm. YouTube is free. It’s only not available where countries have blocked it.
Lack of access can be just as bad as a gun to the head, if not sometimes worse.
What? YouTube is not a necessity to human existence. It’s not food or shelter.
That’s a stunning level of entitlement on show there.
I don’t think YouTube has ever left me feeling like it had any regard for me as a consumer or even valued my time. It appears, from the many complaints I’ve seen by YouTube content creators, that many of them don’t feel valued or respected either. By the time Premium came along it had long lost me as an interested customer.
Fair enough. So you’re going the ad route then?
There’s no feeling that one should honor a one-sided social contract because that requires an actual relationship. If I felt that YouTube actually cared about anything other than being the middle-man that ensures that I get served ads, and demands–but not delivers–respect for it, then maybe I would reconsider.
Ah, so you’re freeloading.
Until then, I will enjoy their competing products. Ad-Blockers and supporting alternative hosting sites that make me feel more valued. They’ve assisted in creating their own black-market for ad-avoidance, and that’s the free market working.
If you don’t want to pay, or view the ads, you should opt out and use an alternative or go without. That’s the ethical choice.
Excellent argument all around. I like that it stayed on point and didn’t devolve into something else entirely. I know you and I don’t necessarily agree, but I respect that you stood your ground and as a result, you as a person. I do feel that you could put more value into the demand-side of things, AKA, the consumer but there’s a bit of nuance there and we probably have different approaches that solve the same ideal. My follow on points would have been to argue that YouTube isn’t deserving of being given a social-contract of ethical conduct etc etc. I would also address that YouTube is central to some livelihoods and the financial well-being of others. I really wanted to highlight the sense of irony that I get that you would call a group of people crybabies and then feel personally attacked when someone took you to task and stood their ground on the counterpoint; however, I concede that if I had known you would have felt personally attacked I would have picked a softer tone and for that I apologize. I think we can both acknowledge that we’d only be arguing nuance at this point and that’s not a worthwhile use of our time. You sir (edit: or ma’am, or something in between, if it pleases), are not an NPC. (also edit; upvotes given for the statements except the original statement I disagreed with)
Joke is on them, i only ever use NewPipe (or freetube on desktop)
I’ve been trying to get ReVanced working on WSA and it force closes at start.
Going to give newpipe a try, thanks!
Have you tried installing the MicroG package?
yeah its installed! I even downloaded the specific version of youtube the patcher wants, IDK what I’m doing wrong
Do I need to patch on my phone and then use that apk on the PC?
I think that would be better. Try a tablet version of the patches…
Stop screwing around and just get newpipe or libretube. The UI is a lot simpler and they are much more stable at the moment.
Discovering freetube was the best thing of my video browsing life. It works so well it’s incredible Feels good to not be continuously tracked while watching videos.
deleted
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.
Google has a history of this sort of “whoops, we got caught, uhhh… That was just a bug!” behavior.
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.
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.
From what I can understand from the thread, they aren’t deliberatly crippling FF.
Oh, they also do that. Just not based on architecture. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23970721/google-youtube-ad-blocker-five-second-delay-firefox-chrome
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.
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
I mean… We can we can invent a thousand conspiracies if we want to…
Except that the delay and ad blocker check is literally in the JavaScript code, you can see it.
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
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
Which turned out to also have nothing to do with FF but is targeting adblockers.
I think they want everyone to use user agent switcher so that Firefox share will drop and then nobody will support it and will die.
Easy: use a user agent switcher that uses blacklists. Mine only spoofs chrome for youtube.com.
Thanks, will definitely check out this unnamed extension.
Here’s one, though several others offer the same functionality.
Custom mode:
{ "www.youtube.com": "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.0.0 Safari/537.36" }
Stupid question, what about 2 in 1 tablets?
Asking logical questions in a thread about a conspiracy theory? We don’t do that here.
Steelmanning: perhaps no ARM Linux system was capable of playing 4K reliably until Asahi Linux came along?
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.
Apple Silicon has entered the chat
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.
True, but I would guess that the clients didn’t handle that well and this was just a stupid quick fix.
And that’s why I use mpv and yt-dlp, folks.
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.
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.
Disgusting!
Here we go again…
