Where YouTube is making a mistake is in showing ads on embedded videos, for YouTube Premium customers and you can no longer click on the embed to go to YouTube and see the video without the ads.
I'm not sure if this is something each site can control using the embed code, but I noticed more and more that embedded videos will no longer allow you to jump youtube.com.
Yes, my thought too, especially since the basic embed allows you to click on the YouTube logo to be able to view the video on the YouTube website.
Unless YouTube is deliberately not allowing high traffic publishing "partners" (?) like the Verge and Vox to get the benefit of their preferred advertising?!
Visual clutter, for starters. And having to then consider the usability implications of having a separate link, how to lay it out across devices, etc. Just having the embed do that saves _a lot_ of hassle in a CMS.
Is anyone else experiencing huge issues with Youtube on Firefox (MacOS) lately? The UI completely hangs for a few seconds, a restart of the browser helps, but I've disabled all extensions and it still hangs. Using the devtools it seems there's a huge GC happening periodically blocking the JS thread, no idea why.
Was reading the comments to see if anyone experienced just that. Youtube sometimes becomes absolutely unusable with Firefox. Google Flights too. Would hate to switch back to Chrome but I keep having to switch back and forth.
I recently experienced an issue with YouTube + Firefox + macOS where not only did parts of the UI lag bug the queue wouldn't advance at the end of a video unless I refreshed the page. It resolved when I allowed google.com and a few others in NoScript. I wonder why your disabling of extensions didn't resolve your issue. I haven't had any more problems in the last few weeks. Also, I'm on an M3 CPU.
That sounds similar to issues I've been having recently with my Firefox uMatrix setup, which only seems to resolve when I blanket-allow everything (which kinda defeats the whole point of having it)
Wait, so the Verge is upset that the PfP player removed a link that would take the user to the video on YouTube. But if they use the normal YouTube player that has the link, the Verge gets less ad $. But the users who click the link would be watching on YouTube, where again, the Verge would be earning less ad $.
Am I understanding this correctly? Because it sounds like the Verge is complaining about a change that should net them marginally more(?) ad $ (and is to YouTube's disadvantage) because a few readers complained, and they're just trying to blame YouTube instead.
I honestly don't understand how you came to that conclusion, considering the following from TFA (emphasis mine):
> Somewhat straightforwardly, YouTube has chosen to degrade the user experience of the embedded player publishers like Vox Media use, and the only way to get that link back is by using a slightly different player *that pays us less and YouTube more*
YouTube made the B2B product worse, and in order to get that functionality back (for now), the Verge would have to take a pay cut
No, they didn't. They baited the large majority with convenience and promises of free services, who got into the trap happily.
Those of us who were warning about the importance of not giving up our self-sovereignty are free. All it requires is just a little bit of effort to self-host things.
Stop being lazy and crying for regulation, when the people themselves can take action.
Who is this hypothetical person who gets outraged at YouTube for having one of their videos embedded on a page with objectionable adverts? I’m sorry but their stated reason is crazy, I can put any site in an iframe on my website, that doesn’t mean they’re associated with me.
> You may check out Rumble.com as a video player alternative.
Although I'm not familiar with the Rumble player, I assume your advice implies that they'd have to host their videos on Rumble as well. The main issue described in the article is about controlling what gets published on their site and what the user experience is going to be. Hosting their videos on a competitor's service is not the answer to that, as it would simply make them dependent yet on another company.
Media outlets that are large enough to need that kind of control but not large enough to host their own data are in a tough spot there.
You can't have it both ways or at least YouTube tried to help publishers out with the special player.
What's the actual problem here: that Verge doesn't like entitled ppl complaining to them about lack of links. Verge is trying to be one of those very publishers going independent etc, so support them, expect to 'stay on site', can't have it both ways.
(Unless Verge does the extra work for the users and adds a quick link under every vid)
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] codetrotter|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mrweasel|1 year ago|reply
I'm not sure if this is something each site can control using the embed code, but I noticed more and more that embedded videos will no longer allow you to jump youtube.com.
[+] [-] wruza|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Incipient|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisMarshallNY|1 year ago|reply
Any reason that they couldn't add a basic text link, below the video, with "Open In YouTube" as the text?
[+] [-] mongol|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] feraloink|1 year ago|reply
Unless YouTube is deliberately not allowing high traffic publishing "partners" (?) like the Verge and Vox to get the benefit of their preferred advertising?!
[+] [-] rcarmo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jbaber|1 year ago|reply
If a site has preferred ads they'd like to show anyway, maybe it's time for them to pay for hosting the video elsewhere.
[+] [-] Hendrikto|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Zealotux|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] davidivadavid|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 6510|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] ravenstine|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] perryizgr8|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tushar-r|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] everfrustrated|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] meiraleal|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] encody|1 year ago|reply
Am I understanding this correctly? Because it sounds like the Verge is complaining about a change that should net them marginally more(?) ad $ (and is to YouTube's disadvantage) because a few readers complained, and they're just trying to blame YouTube instead.
I'm confused.
[+] [-] ghusto|1 year ago|reply
It's YouTube's choice to do whatever they like with their own product, but the reason what they've chosen to do is problematic is:
1. It's yet another bait'n'switch
2. It is shady as fuck to not only make no announcement about the change, but make it difficult to even figure out what's happened
In short; yes it's Google's prerogative to be a bag of dicks, but let's not pretend that's not exactly what they are (continuing to be)
[+] [-] xethos|1 year ago|reply
> Somewhat straightforwardly, YouTube has chosen to degrade the user experience of the embedded player publishers like Vox Media use, and the only way to get that link back is by using a slightly different player *that pays us less and YouTube more*
YouTube made the B2B product worse, and in order to get that functionality back (for now), the Verge would have to take a pay cut
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rglullis|1 year ago|reply
No, they didn't. They baited the large majority with convenience and promises of free services, who got into the trap happily.
Those of us who were warning about the importance of not giving up our self-sovereignty are free. All it requires is just a little bit of effort to self-host things.
Stop being lazy and crying for regulation, when the people themselves can take action.
[+] [-] gruez|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] NooneAtAll3|1 year ago|reply
and simple refresh doesn't help - I have to ctrl+f5 to fix it
[+] [-] Hendrikto|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mabedan|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwrestler|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bspammer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] sunaookami|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nonelog|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pratnala|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Udo|1 year ago|reply
Although I'm not familiar with the Rumble player, I assume your advice implies that they'd have to host their videos on Rumble as well. The main issue described in the article is about controlling what gets published on their site and what the user experience is going to be. Hosting their videos on a competitor's service is not the answer to that, as it would simply make them dependent yet on another company.
Media outlets that are large enough to need that kind of control but not large enough to host their own data are in a tough spot there.
[+] [-] wazoox|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Hendrikto|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xbmcuser|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] croes|1 year ago|reply
You clicked the title and went to YouTube.
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|1 year ago|reply
What's the actual problem here: that Verge doesn't like entitled ppl complaining to them about lack of links. Verge is trying to be one of those very publishers going independent etc, so support them, expect to 'stay on site', can't have it both ways. (Unless Verge does the extra work for the users and adds a quick link under every vid)
[+] [-] n144q|1 year ago|reply