this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
2041 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

58394 readers
4217 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rdri@lemmy.world 70 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Did someone actually investigate and find the exact place in scripts where this logic takes place?

EDIT: Yes. https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-reportedly-slowing-down-videos-firefox-3387206/

[–] sulgoth@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like something that would be in the back end so likely not. But if spoofing user agents fixes the problem then I'd say it's evidence enough to warrant a deeper look.

[–] tegs_terry@feddit.uk 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Senshi@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Yes. User Agent is a http header that is part of every request you send to a server. As such, it is 100% client side and it can be whatever you want, it's just a text string. For layman users, I'd recommend using an addon for it, e.g. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-string-switcher/

Of course, you can also change the user agent string in the browser config manually. The official Mozilla support page describes the process in detail: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-reset-default-user-agent-firefox

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it's pretty inconclusive if there's no context for how that code is called. I'm kinda confused why the article wouldn't have provided any additional detail other than a single line of code. why bother digging at all?

[–] _thisdot@infosec.pub 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it's part of their anti-adblock code. without going into too much details, they can instantly find out whether ad-block is trying to do anything on chrome, but on firefox they need a 5 sec delay

[–] DolphinMath@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

I’d be more likely to believe that if spoofing your user agent didn’t immediately fix the issue.

[–] fernandofig@reddthat.com 9 points 10 months ago

Have you read past that screenshot of the code, though? It says the problem was not limited to Firefox, it seems Edge users reported problems as well. Anecdotally, I did experience that delay problem on Thorium this weekend as well. I have seen a variation of this problem almost a month ago, where sometimes the video would take a long time (like, over a minute, sometimes) to load, or often just not load at all. So I just chalked it up to Youtube having done something stupid on their end.

[–] lipilee@feddit.nl 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

that half sentence in the aa article though

"That move makes sense in many ways, as the platform needs to make money to survive..."

should we also start a gofundme for youtube, i am suddenly worried for them /s

[–] businessfish@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

not saying we should worry for them, but youtube is run at a loss so they do actually need money from SOMEWHERE to maintain youtube. youtube still sucks and this is definitely not the way to win over users but thems the facts

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Alphabet made $50 billion in profit last year. They've got enough to run YouTube, but enough isn't enough.