top | item 37886689

(no title)

atleta | 2 years ago

Lookig at it source (the page downloaded when you open a YT link pointing to a video), it's almost certain that YT doesn't load without JS. It's not an html page with some extra functionality implemented in JS, it's a web app that builds the web page you see from JS.

So firefox can't do much about it without actively trying to circumvent YT and YT specifically.

I don't think browsers made the turn you mention. It's more like browsers became more and more capable and web developers made use of it. Sometimes it's annoying because most websites are not websites anymore but apps (GUIs) that run in the browser and some of the web sites/apps people use could never work without it. Sure, we could all deploy those apps onto our machines (or have them deploy automatically in a sandbox) and there were actually technologies that did just that (think java web start or whatever the name ended up being) but they lost to what we have now: running these apps in the browser.

Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads. But sure, most sites don't offer this.

discuss

order

matheusmoreira|2 years ago

> So firefox can't do much about it without actively trying to circumvent YT and YT specifically.

There's no reason why Firefox couldn't do that.

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you.

Sure I can, uBlock Origin provides exactly that. They are not entitled to my attention. If they have a problem with that, they can return 402 Payment Required.

asmor|2 years ago

That's excessive scope creep. Adding site-specific workarounds for some sites feels uncomfortable. Who decides what websites get "fixed", and how? That's a great bit to move to addons. Maybe recommend them more visibly instead.

Also, remember how Mozilla is funded.

atleta|2 years ago

There are a lot of reasons why Firefox or other browsers can't do that, but my claim was that FF (or any browser) can't do it without writing code specifically to get around YT. And this was a response to the parent who said that FF should (and could) simply just ignore the CSS.

> Sure I can, uBlock Origin provides exactly that.

Obviously, I meant that it doesn't work financially so there is no point being upset about it. If enough people block the ads then they'll do something about it. Actually it's not hypothetical anymore, I just started to see these warnings a few days ago. (I wasn't deliberately blocking the ads, I've been just using ghostery which, it seems, started blocking YT ads.) So yeah, in the end, as you also say, people in general can't consume ad supported services without paying with their attention. It just doesn't work business wise.

Fnoord|2 years ago

If youtube-dl (or its successor) can do it; so can a browser (extension). Whether the browser should natively allow this I leave up to the browser devs.

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads. But sure, most sites don't offer this.

Websites have various models: non-profit, donation-based, advertising-based, tracked-based. A website like YouTube still has high profit margins as they do tracking as well.

hombre_fatal|2 years ago

What’s the difference between tracking and ad revenue? If you refuse to even let them serve you ads (and won’t pay for premium) what exactly are you contributing to those who create the content that you want? Or is that just the creators’ problem?

mandmandam|2 years ago

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads.

Just to be very clear, those are not the only two possible options.

YouTube - and Facebook, Google, Whatsapp, etc - are extraordinarily simple concepts. We don't need private corporations running them for profit. In fact, it's turning out really bad for us.

yakshaving_jgt|2 years ago

You're welcome to build an alternative and claim their kingdom.

The reason that hasn't happened yet is because whether or not you find YT an extraordinarily simple concept, the execution is tremendously difficult.