this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023

2643 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

58138 readers

4585 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

2643

Youtube has started to artificially slow down video load times if you use Firefox. Spoofing Chrome magically makes this problem go away. (old.reddit.com)

submitted 10 months ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

474 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rchive@lemm.ee -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

No, not really. Google can't do anything about my taking my Firefox browser and watching videos from somewhere else. There are countless other video streaming services.

[–] qfjp@lemmy.one 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are countless other video streaming services.

There are government websites - including my state's dmv - that exclusively use youtube. You're being disingenuous when you're saying you can just use another streaming service (and I don't believe you don't know it).

[–] rchive@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that's actually neutral. The government has full control over where they host their videos. Using that as a reason to TRY (a likely long and drawn out process) to force Google to change its policies company-wide is silly.

I'm not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It's easy.

[–] qfjp@lemmy.one 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The efficient solution to that problem is governments using a different platform that's actually neutral.

First time I've heard public services called efficient, but ok.

I'm not being disingenuous. I watch videos on a bunch of platforms. It's easy.

We're not talking about you here. You're purposely ignoring the problem, and therefore being disingenuous.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Public services aren't efficient, but they can surely change themselves more efficiently than they can force a multi billion dollar company to change its ways.

I'm surprised you're not more worried about the government outsourcing its functions to a company you seem very suspicious of.

If the government decided to have vital public meetings only in a private venue you have to be a member of or something, the proper fix is not to force the club to accept everyone, it's to have the government stop having vital meetings in private places.

I also don't see a problem because everything of value these video streaming services offer is replaceable by one of the many other streaming services. The fact that YouTube is the biggest or most recognized does not change anything for me. The fact that there is some content that is only on YouTube doesn't, either. That's a normal thing that happens in an economy. Ford dealers only sell Ford cars, Coca Cola doesn't sell Pepsi, etc.

[–] qfjp@lemmy.one 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Public services aren't efficient, but they can surely change themselves more efficiently than they can force a multi billion dollar company to change its ways.

[citation needed]

I'm surprised you're not more worried about the government outsourcing its functions to a company you seem very suspicious of.

You're the one talking about all the alternate video services you use. I just dont want a monopoly.

If the government decided to have vital public meetings only in a private venue you have to be a member of or something, the proper fix is not to force the club to accept everyone, it's to have the government stop having vital meetings in private places.

wut. Not having meetings in private places literally is making sure the 'place' accepts everyone. Do you even read what you're saying?

I also don't see a problem because everything of value these video streaming services offer is replaceable by one of the many other streaming services. The fact that YouTube is the biggest or most recognized does not change anything for me. The fact that there is some content that is only on YouTube doesn't, either.

Well, you totally missed the point then.

[–] rchive@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I just dont want a monopoly.

There is no monopoly in video streaming. Not even close.

wut. Not having meetings in private places literally is making sure the 'place' accepts everyone. Do you even read what you're saying?

You're misreading what I wrote. If government unfairly has vital meetings at Private Club which not everyone has access to, the solution is not to force Private Club to accept everyone, it's to not have meetings at Private Club and have them at City Hall or something instead, somewhere that isn't exclusive.

[–] qfjp@lemmy.one 1 points 10 months ago

There is no monopoly in video streaming. Not even close.

Ah, you're one of those people. Okay.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Yes except everyone knows YouTube has a massive, massive market advantage in that space. And the channel you want to watch isn't on the others. And you know this too.