3 ms·
That's not plausible. If someone sees, oh YouTube is making my computer hot, the last thing that's going to occur to them is, "wait let me try turning off my a
by crazygringo 1y ago
That's not plausible.
If someone sees, oh YouTube is making my computer hot, the last thing that's going to occur to them is, "wait let me try turning off my adblocker."
When corporations try to change people's incentives, they are obvious about it, so people know what to change.
In contrast, changing CPU usage on video playback for people who use adblockers and then not telling anyone is... just not a strategy that makes any sense at all.
- j45 1y agoIt might be worth finding out what codec might be coming down the pipe in any case.
- hedora 1y agoSure it is. They’ve done crap like make firefox or safari run hot on other Google properties in the past. Is it incompetence or sabotage? Who knows. The first rule of sabotage is to be indistinguishable from incompetence. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184
- crazygringo 1y agoIncompetence is by definition not intentional, and sabotage is the action of a rogue employee, not corporate strategy. A corporation can't intentionally sabotage itself, by definition.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoThey're sabotaging non-Chrome browsers to drive people toward their platform with the strategically weakened extension API.
- crazygringo 1y agoI don't think that has any connection to the subject under discussion, which is about whether YouTube CPU performance would lead people to turn off adblockers. Not about getting people to switch to Chrome.
- Shared404 1y agoI believe their point is that people switching to Chrome _is_ turning off their adblocker.
- crazygringo 1y agoWhy would it? uBlock Origin Lite blocks ads on YouTube just fine on Chrome.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoDo I hear boiling water?
- glenstein 1y agoI find it fascinating that people think 12 seconds armchair psychology is enough to definitively rule out phenomena that hinge on complex tech and complex human deliberations about policy. That works on campy monster of the week TV shows but it catastrophically underestimates real world complexity. We've got documented cases in the wild of youtube adding 5 second timer, as well as experimenting with 3 video limits for adblock users, not to mention the cat and mouse game of breaking scraper-oriented tools like Newpipe. So it's happened before, and on-the-ground evidence of historical precedent and a straight look at incentives tell us more than assumed psychological states.
- crazygringo 1y agoDid you mean to reply to a different comment? Mine didn't say anything about psychology. But you do seem to be strengthening my comment -- when YouTube was implementing a 3 video limit for users blocking ads, they were doing so with a big huge message: "It looks like you may be using an ad blocker. Video playback will be blocked unless YouTube is allowlisted or the ad blocker is disabled." That makes sense as a strategy, telling the user what to change. Silently using up more CPU doesn't.
- glenstein 1y agoMusing on how a message will be subjectively experienced by users to the point of ruling out explanations based on an assumed subjective reaction, and assuming complex software development outcomes are tied to that specific strategy, is in fact about psychology on multiple levels, despite your protestation to the contrary. Specifically it's armchair psychology that underestimates complexity. Most of my examples cut against your interpretation rather than in favor of. The 5 second delay was discovered rather than announced, and same with Newpipe breaking, and I don't even agree that the video message had anything to do with a broad principle of always tying communications to user experience. If anything the history is the opposite, rotating through various forms of obstruction all of which nudge user behavior in various ways, perfectly agnostic to any principle of how it gets communicated.
- 1y ago
- ChocoStarQuest9 1y agoYou part of the Armchair Psycholologist Masterrace?