this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3197 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
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fuck Google.

Searching a tracking number from Chrome using Google? Finds a package.

Same search on Google from Firefox leads to nothing.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hell net neutrality laws might even have relevance if they keep this up.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works -1 points 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.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social -1 points 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.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spez_@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago
[–] slimarev92@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like how nobody actually bothered to read the thread and doesn't understand this is a bug and wasn't done on purpose.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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:

  1. Google's engineers were unable to tell that performance in Firefox is degraded by their changes.
  2. 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.
[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Have you actually checked the code? It doesn't target Firefox at all. Man...

[–] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

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

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, anti competitive practices.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago