11 ms·
From reddit discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/comment/k9w3ei4/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r
by ayhanfuat 3y ago
From reddit discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/comment/k9w3ei4/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/17ywbjj/comment/k9...):
> To clarify it more, it's simply this code in their polymer script link:
> setTimeout(function() {
c();
a.resolve(1)
}, 5E3);
> which doesn't do anything except making you wait 5s (5E3 = 5000ms = 5s). You can search for it easily in https://www.youtube.com/s/desktop/96766c85/jsbin/desktop_polymer_enable_wil_icons.vflset/desktop_polymer_enable_wil_icons.js https://www.youtube.com/s/desktop/96766c85/jsbin/desktop_pol...
- m4tthumphrey 3y agoThis is interesting as I had noticed this happening to me (in Chrome) when the anti-ad-blocking started. I assumed that it was YT's way of "annoying" me still while no ads were shown... It was eventually replaced with the "You cant use Adblockers modal" and now I just tolerate the ads. So I wonder if that 5s delay has always been there.
- dbspin 3y agoIt's still trivial to block ads, but the delay has recently started for me, after never happening before. So presumably a very intentional volley in the ongoing war to own your attention.
- Lacerda69 3y agoIt's weird but I saw the anti-blocker modal a week or two but them it stopped appearing and never saw it since shrug
- psll 3y agoMight be because of the EU ruling, if you're in the EU.
- dave881 3y agoI'm in the US, and had the same experience. I got the you can't use an adblocker message, but was able to close and/or reload the page to watch videos without ads. After a week or so it stopped popping up. US, Firefox, uBlockOrgin.
- xkcd1963 3y agoJust install adblocker?
- Erratic6576 3y agoOr Freetube / Newpipe
- ikt 3y agono need to go that extreme, the fix is to just update ublock orgins filters Go into ublock origin addon > click filter lists > purge all caches then update now all done
- m4tthumphrey 3y agoMeh.. I could but I have to tolerate them on TV anyway. I may look to install pi-hole one day.
- Larrikin 3y agoPi hole doesn't help, but there are various Android TV apps that do block ads. I still prefer the Roku eco system but I switched after they started putting ads in the middle of music videos.
- wanderingmind 3y agoIf you have an Android TV, You can use SmartTube[1] that has Adblock + Sponsorblock [1] https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTube
- samrus 3y agopihole doesnt work for youtube because ads and content are served from the same domains.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mlindner 3y agoI still use adblockers perfectly fine on Youtube. There was never a real interruption in adblocking either. You just need ublock origin + bypass paywalls.
- busssard 3y agoABP also still works just fine. I prefer the armsrace being taken care of someone else
- prmoustache 3y agoI think they only disabled adblockers to logged users probably because non logged users don't have to agree to terms of services.
- mlindner 3y agoI'm always logged on and using adblockers. So no, that's not it. I also use Youtube probably every day and am a very active user.
- jimcsharp 3y agoBlockers work with my throw away Google accounts that I use for this and that. So maybe it's restricted further still to very entrenched users.
- bluescrn 3y agoWhen I ran into the adblocker-blocker (Firefox + uBlock Origin), I noticed that I could watch videos if logged out. So I just stayed logged out, and haven't seen an anti-adblock message since. Or an ad. Added bonus, I'm less tempted to venture into the comments section...
- jonathanstrange 3y agoI'm using Firefox + uBlock Origin logged in and it works totally fine. Maybe Youtube removed the anti-adblocker on select accounts? I remember I once entertained myself with writing a report in which I sounded like I'm sitting in a retirement home and have no clue what's going on with "ad block." Did perhaps someone actually read this?
- Synaesthesia 3y agoIt seems to be something which is randomly deployed. Not everybody gets the warning.
- jonathanstrange 3y agoI got it in the past for weeks, though.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoI think you have simply been lucky, the full story is that uBlock Origin and Youtube have been tying to outpatch the other, with uBlock rolling out a bypass to the filters every one-two days since late October (https://github.com/stephenhawk8054/misc/commits/main/yt-fix.txt https://github.com/stephenhawk8054/misc/commits/main/yt-fix....). Depending on if you've set up uBlock to auto-update and when you've watched youtube relative to when the block filters got updated you might just not have been hit with the latest detectors while they were active. Personally I know I got the "accept ads or leave" modal with firefox + uBlock, locking me out completely on one of my devices.
- bratwurst3000 3y ago
- fimdomeio 3y agoAnother way I noticed is good at skipping ads when adblocker fails is to refresh the page. When it loads again it does not play the ad.
- andyjohnson0 3y agoTrying to be charitable here: could this be a debug/test artefact that inadvertantly got into production?
- enlyth 3y agoWithout studying the minified code I wouldn't assume malice just yet, this could be just an inexperienced developer trying to lazily fix some browser-specific bug, or something that accidentally made it to production like you say
- vanderZwan 3y agoYou think they let inexperienced developers touch the YT code base without proper code review? Even if that were the case, which is an extremely charitable assumption, that itself would be malice in my opinion.
- londons_explore 3y agolol This reply is for everyone who has ever worked on the codebase...
- ozim 3y agoShould be: LOL LGTM
- sapiogram 3y ago> You think they let inexperienced developers touch the YT code base without proper code review? Yes
- ric2b 3y agoYouTube is way too stable for that to be the case.
- enlyth 3y ago
- kjhgksjdfhg 3y agoI'm not even mad about Google making my artificially wait 5s for using firefox. I'm mad that such a big company with suposelly decent engineers, are making me wait 5s with literally a sleep, how is even possible to do such thing in such a rudimentary way? I would be like damn that was smart, this feels like, seriously this is the level?
- throwaw12 3y agoIMHO, this kind of things are not done by engineers. * Marketing/Sales asks engineers to add a feature flag to sleep N milliseconds for their research: "how slowing down impacts your revenue" * engineer adds a flag, with different control parameters * Some genius in Product figures this out and updates the experiment to slow down for competitors When company gets a backlash from public: "oops, we forgot to clean up all parameters of feature flag and it accidentally impacted Firefox"
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> * Marketing/Sales asks engineers to add a feature flag to sleep N milliseconds for their research: "how slowing down impacts your revenue" “Research”
- HlessClaudesman 3y agoResearching how best to fuck with your competitors.
- actionfromafar 3y agoNext: researching regulatory capture?
- Jensson 3y agoThey have done such research before, Google published this at a time when developers were all "100 ms more or less web load time doesn't matter". Since then webpages has gotten much more focused on performance. https://blog.research.google/2009/06/speed-matters.html https://blog.research.google/2009/06/speed-matters.html
- qwery 3y agoIs the use of the "E" notation common in JS? I can see that it (could be) less bytes, obviously more efficient for bigger values... Looking at the script I can see it is minified or whatever we call that these days. I guess my question really is: did someone write "5E3" or did the minifier choose it? (Sorry this is heading into the weeds, but I'm not really a web developer so maybe someone can tell me!)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sebzim4500 3y agoAlmost certainly the minimizer
- Dumble 3y agoTotally possible that the minifier did this, yes.
- yread 3y agoI wonder if this actually decreases the byte over wire. 5000 compresses a lot better.... sorry for OT
- brettermeier 3y agoInteresting question. Has anyone tested this?
- d3w4s9 3y agoBecause 5E3 is shorter than 5000, just like you can often see !0 to get "true" in minimize code because it saves two characters.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoIn js I thought 1==true, and 1 is shorter than !0 ?? Never seen the use of exponential notation for numbers in js though (not a surprise, I'm not really a programmer), it seems sensible to me from the point of shifting the domain from ms to seconds.
- jug 3y agoHow is this not blatant anticompetitive behavior?
- 93po 3y agoCapitalism as it exists is, at its core, anticompetitive.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoThat is not correct. The surrounding code gives some more context: h=document.createElement("video");l=new Blob([new Uint8Array([/* snip */])],{type:"video/webm"}); h.src=lc(Mia(l));h.ontimeupdate=function(){c();a.resolve(0)}; e.appendChild(h);h.classList.add("html5-main-video");setTimeout(function(){e.classList.add("ad-interrupting")},200); setTimeout(function(){c();a.resolve(1)},5E3); return m.return(a.promise)})} As far as I understand, this code is a part of the anti-adblocker code that (slowly) constructs an HTML fragment such as `<div class="ad-interrupting"><video src="blob:https://www.youtube.com/ https://www.youtube.com/..." class="html5-main-video"></video></div>`. It will detect the adblocker once `ontimeupdate` event didn't fire for 5 full seconds (the embedded webm file itself is 3 seconds long), which is the actual goal for this particular code. I do agree that the anti-adblocker attempt itself is still annoying.
- gear54rus 3y ago[flagged]
- Ygg2 3y agoHow come switching to User Agent to Chrome fixed it for that Reddit OP? Does it omit this if UA is changed?
- gear54rus 3y agoWhen they first introduced anti-adblock crap, you could evade the banner by switching UAs. I'd say it's fair to assume that switching UAs triggers some other code path and this function never gets called.
- makeitdouble 3y agoThis gives us some background, but it's still slowing down firefox with no relation to the video content.
- insanitybit 3y ago
- Semaphor 3y agoHow/When does that script get loaded? It’s not showing up in my network tab. Videos also load instant as usual.
- alex7734 3y agoThis is happening to me in Chrome as well so I don't think it's tied to the browser you use. Curiously it happens only on one profile, in another Chrome profile (which is also logged in to the same Google account) it does not happen. Both profiles run the code in your comment, but the one that does not have the delay does not wait for it to complete. The only difference I spotted was that the profile that loads slowly does not include the #player-placeholder element in the initial HTML response. Maybe whether it sends it or not is tied to previous ad-blocker usage? What does piss me off is that even if you clear cookies and local storage and turn off all extensions in both profiles it still somehow "knows" which profile is which, and I don't know how it's doing it.