this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
18 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

85245 readers
4598 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scholar@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's bizarre how blatent this is. Google has so much power over web standards that Mozilla have to work really hard to make firefox work, but YouTube don't bother being subtle or clever and just write 'if Firefox, get stuffed' in plain text for everyone to see.

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Google has been doing this kind of thing for a while. If you try to use Google Meet in Firefox, you can’t use things like background blurring. Spoofing Chrome works in that situation as well.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And the stupid thing is that all I use Chrome for is Meets... And that's it. Do they really think they win me over?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not you or me. But most people, yeah.

[–] sulsaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That is, as always, the problem: it works for them. The average Joe isn't going to implement a new filter into ublock...

[–] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How does one "spoof" chrome?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

You can change your user agent string, the text your browser uses to tell the web site you're looking at what browser it is, either via your F12 developer tools menu or via an extension.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

It works for me now. Only took them 8 years

[–] Voltage@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The fuck?? Isn’t this anti competitive behaviour?

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm sure the EU will still.

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s just a shame that there’s really only one government organization globally that will still stand up to corporations.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

To be fair China will send you to a reeducation camp or disappear you if you try to act like a western billionaire.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] fenrasulfr@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Let's hope Europe stars investigating Google as a gatekeeper. That seemed to work miracles on Apple.

[–] Rinox@feddit.it 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] Meltrax@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

This is some ultimate scumbaggery.

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This should be illegal, Firefox being their competition (tangentially)

[–] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

EU might hit them for it. I have no faith that the US government is going to do anything.

[–] Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The thing that gets me is they think no one will ever find this stuff. There are hundreds of thousands of people (maybe more) who are actively looking ways to block ads and get around this behavior. There's no way it'll ever go unnoticed.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They could literally have used some variance in implementation, server side bandwidth limitations, etc, but THIS is just blatantly obvious

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

I wonder if it's a case of malicious compliance.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So this is part of a larger adblock checker, if the ad doesn't load within 5 seconds, it fails and triggers the adblocker warning. Since the ad should load in 3, they've set it for 5. If you have ubo, you won't see the warning that it then wants to pop up, it just seems (and is) a 5 second delay. Changing the UA probably removes this from Firefox because then the clientside scripts will attempt to use builtin Chrome functions that wouldn't need this hacky script to detect the adblock. Since they don't exist, it just carries on.

[–] localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago

I was wondering how badly out of context the above quote must be considering the UA isn't checked in the function. Above poster is trying to construe it as a pure and simple permanent delay for Firefox.

That being said, the solution is still bullshit.

[–] squirrelwithnut@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

This is why net neutrality is important. To prevent bullshit like this from happening.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Doesn't this break competition laws?
Couldn't Google/YouTube be sued over this?

[–] PrairieRanger@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I wonder how long it'll be before google gets sued for their anti-competitive behavior.

[–] pastaPersona@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sometimes I get curious about chromium based browsers and consider giving them a shot for a while.

Then Google does shit like this and I keep mainlining Firefox out of spite. Half the reasons people experience “issues” with Firefox are just dumb garbage like this (see sites / web content being developed with Chrome-based in mind)

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Heck I use god damn duckduckgo out of spite nowadays

[–] Amends1782@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

DDG is legit great and even sometimes better than Google search now. I also am a SearXNG enjoyer

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

DDG, even though apparently a Bing front end, gives legit better results than google

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

It's honestly good. It misses that "Algorithm profile" that Google has where it starts to "understand" what you mean but it's still pretty good.

(Example. If I type in "genocide" in Google, it knows I often look for Undertale related things and pushes "Undertale genocide route" related content. For DDG I need to be clearer about what I mean)

It took a bit getting used to but I prefer it this way now.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

the website DRM thing is one of the most blackpilled and evil uses of technology i've ever seen

the people in charge of developing that should be put in a padded room and never allowed to see sunlight again. fucking god.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Woah, woah, woah, slow down: Why do they get to have padding in their room?