• PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      285
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a previous generation, governments would go after this blatant anti competitive behaviour.

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      113
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Some people are reporting it happens when your accounts get flagged by YouTube for blocking ads and that using a private browsing session can be used to bypass it, so it’s possible this isn’t a blanket thing?

      Either way, they can go fuck themselves.

      If you’re on Firefox and using uBlock Origin (which you should), you can add the following to your filters list to essentially disable the delay:

      ! Bypass 5 seconds delay added by YouTube
      www.youtube.com##+js(nano-stb, resolve(1), 5000, 0.001)
      

      It doesn’t fully disable it, just makes it almost instant, because Google has been doing shit like looking at what gets blocked to combat ad blockers recently.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Do you want to hear about the Microsoft “bug” that affected Firefox that was only recently fixed after 5+ years of getting reported?

      Corporations really hate non-profit products that are superior.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      72
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it more anti competitive than McDonald’s only selling McDonald’s burgers or preventing you from bringing Taco Bell tacos in from outside?

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Doesn’t Tesla do the equivalent of that with charging stations?

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s less restrictive than what I said. McDonald’s won’t let you bring tacos in at all, doesn’t just make you wait at the door for 2 minutes, etc.

          Edit: and to anyone quibbling with my McDonald’s example saying you can in fact bring tacos in, that was just an illustration. I can find plenty of examples of one establishment not letting people bring food in from somewhere else.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Yes. Yes, it is!

        2. McDonald’s doesn’t actually give a shit if you bring in food from other places.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. How?

          2. Pick a different example then. In my experience movie theaters don’t let you bring food in from outside. McDonald’s still won’t sell a Burger King burger regardless of whether you could bring one in.

      • qfjp@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it more anti competitive than McDonald’s only selling McDonald’s burgers

        Yeah, it’s more like the next time you go to Wendy’s, McDonald’s will follow you and try to lock the doors before you go in.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is this a “gosh Wally, they’re just trying to do business! Do you expect everything for free??” post? Because that’s not how internet business works. This is not a thing that Google invented and developed on their own.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because that’s not how internet business works.

          How does it work, then?

          This is not a thing that Google invented and developed on their own.

          I don’t know what this is referring to or what it has to do with anything.