The fuck?? Isn’t this anti competitive behaviour?
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58513 readers
6758 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
In a previous generation, governments would go after this blatant anti competitive behaviour.
I'm sure the EU will still.
It’s just a shame that there’s really only one government organization globally that will still stand up to corporations.
For now
To be fair China will send you to a reeducation camp or disappear you if you try to act like a western billionaire.
China will make you disappear for many things including speaking up against the genocide of religious minorities ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Honestly with the speed new BS crops up I don’t think they will.
The current US Federal Trade Commission is quite agressive compared to other FTCs historically.
Yes, but they haven't fixed this specific problem that just broke in the last day or so, therefore the FTC is a corrupt useless organization that pours hot wax on kittens
Is it more anti competitive than McDonald's only selling McDonald's burgers or preventing you from bringing Taco Bell tacos in from outside?
-
Yes. Yes, it is!
-
McDonald's doesn't actually give a shit if you bring in food from other places.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
🙄 No it would be like Ford owning gas stations and pumping faster for Ford vehicles than Chevy.
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.
I don't feel your analogy quite captures what is going on here because both McDonald's and Taco Bell are in the same business. Maybe if you explain it more.
Google owns a major web destination, YouTube, essentially a line of business in its own right, in addition to Chrome, also its own distinct product. Firefox competes with Chrome but Google is allegedly using market dominance with YouTube to make it harder for Firefox to compete.
If a company owns two products A and B and if A is used to access B, company cannot hinder competitors to A via fuckery in B.
This is the kind of thing that MS got in trouble for -- using Windows to tip the scales in favor of Internet Explorer by tightly integrating it into the OS.
McDonald's prohibiting people from using their restaurant, which is not itself a separate product with a separate market. Nobody is clamoring to go to McDonald's restaurant spaces to sit and eat. It's just part of the restaurant offering. So there is no leverage like there is with YouTube being used against a competitor for a totally different product. And besides, Taco Bell can do the same as McDonald's. They're on equal footing.
If in your analogy there were some other product that McDonald's owned that could penalize you for going to Taco Bell your analogy would work.
- Google -- Ford
- Mozilla -- Chevy
- Firefox -- Chevy car
- Chrome -- Ford Car
- YouTube -- Ford gas station
Doesn't Tesla do the equivalent of that with charging stations?
Maybe. But Tesla doesn't own over 50% of the charging station market share.
True... I think even if they don't, it's still potentially anti-competitive.
(Gawd, Imagine how life would be with gas station incompatibility with your car. Holy shit that would suck).
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.
I use youtube without logging in, and it runs normally. If I use a private window, that's when I get a delay when loading videos.
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.
If you're networked with the right people in the US, laws don't matter
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.
In my other comment I provide a link to the US DOJ anti-trust complaint center website.
this isn't much different than when microsoft added code specifically to break windows 3.1 when run under dr-dos instead of their own ms-dos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
And it cost them 280 million in the 90s ouch
Something tells me they survived.
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.
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?
Not you or me. But most people, yeah.
That is, as always, the problem: it works for them. The average Joe isn't going to implement a new filter into ublock...
BTW, this:
This is some ultimate scumbaggery.
This should be illegal, Firefox being their competition (tangentially)
It honestly probably is
EU might hit them for it. I have no faith that the US government is going to do anything.
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.
They could literally have used some variance in implementation, server side bandwidth limitations, etc, but THIS is just blatantly obvious
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.
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.
That is just the timeout function, not the call stack. It is likely called in a function that uses a UA check.
Fuck Google
view more: next ›