• PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      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.

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • moody@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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?

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

          • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe. But Tesla doesn’t own over 50% of the charging station market share.

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

              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).

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          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.

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

            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
      • qfjp@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
          0
          ·
          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
            1
            ·
            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
              0
              ·
              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
                1
                ·
                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.

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