1229
YouTube is deliberately crippling Firefox on ARM systems
(social.treehouse.systems)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
1229 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59612 readers
2761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
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.
Nobody is claiming they did
Whatever the free market will pay. Like with any other product.
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.
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.
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.
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?
🥱
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.
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 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.
🥱
I guess we're done here then.
Oh, were still going. Okay.
Erm. YouTube is free. It's only not available where countries have blocked it.
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.
Fair enough. So you're going the ad route then?
Ah, so you're freeloading.
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)
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:
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.
I feel respected because I grab the product I want, take it to the register, and pay for it and get the result that I expect based on what I paid. Marketing and manipulation aside, I acknowledge that's part of being an educated consumer. I'd thank you for putting value in my response, but I'm not interested either.