Firefox users are reporting an ‘artificial’ load time on YouTube videos. YouTube says it’s part of a plan to make people who use adblockers “experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using.”
“They’re the same picture.”
Also, that does not explain why:
- Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue
- Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue
- FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issue
Now, if only we knew who made Chrome and YouTube… The mind boggles.
Given that Google’s been talking about switching Chrome to a new plugin format that would limit the ability of adblockers to function on Chrome, and given that Google owns Youtube and profits from the ads Youtube displays…
Nope, I’m not connecting the dots. Not sure why Google would be wanting people switch from Firefox to Chrome at this time.
It’s more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits. That’s more than enough info to assume they’re going to go to war in the near future (now) with them.
They’ve always been at war with ad blockers. It’s just most major multinationals have matured or diversified to a point where they are functional monopolies, and no longer gain any value in competition or service improvement.
At this stage of the merger and consolidation phase of global capitalism, with captured governments that won’t dare break them up or fine them more than a meek virtue signal, the most cost effective way to satiate the infinite growth of capitalism is to increase the exploitation and value extraction of their existing user base as much as possible (aka enshittification).
their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.
Concluding implicitly: “… and therefore a threat to all your computers’ security” :-)
It’s more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.
Sounds like the single best reason to use one.
Dear God, won’t anyone think of the shareholders?
Just for clarity, they already switched protocols (Manifest v3), they just have continued to support the old format (v2) that allows unlock origin to work. They are discontinuing support for v2 next year.
What really pisses me off is that mv3 is becoming a standard that Vivaldi, Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc. will use.
Mind you that Firefox will adjust it to be able to fully support ad blocker.
deleted by creator
C’mon man not everything needs a /S
(They’re being sarcastic)
The last scenario is clearly a breach of anti-trust laws. It is time for alphabet to be broken up. Their monopoly is way worse than AT&T every was.
Alphabet’s monopoly is bad, make no mistake.
But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.
But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.
Google controls over 90% of the search business in the US and that’s the way the vast majority of people begin their browsing. It’s why US v Google is currently in the courts
MS vs US back in the 90’s did not result in anything significant. This pretty much will happen again with Google. Some lobbyists will just do their thing, some minor slaps in the wrist and concessments between DoJ and Alohabet etc and Google will continue to Googling around.
I’m not trying to argue there’s appetite to break up Google among the people with the power to do it. I’m just arguing Google has a monopoly similar to Ma Bell.
Yeah I agree
Adsense is literally 90% of the market. Let alone android…
Uh… Gmail, Ad sense, search?
They’ve got like a dozen duopolies going on, they have far more control and ability to leverage it than Bell ever did
Also, that does not explain why:
Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issueI am a Firefox user who uses adblock and I don’t get the issue.
I think uBlock might already be blocking that code.
I was getting the delay early yesterday and then it went away. I guess they must have done something in uBO.
Just turned it off. No difference.
YouTube rolls features out in waves
Same here. Firefox, ublock origin, privacy badger. Videos start playing in under 2 seconds. I’ve also never got the adblock warning.
Lucky I guess.
They just haven’t rolled it out to you yet.
Chrome sends every single website you visit to Google. You already pay with your privacy.
I know several websites consider firefox’s built-in privacy settings an adblocker in certain configurations. I get notices on many sites and use no adblocker. Not sure if it’s the case here.
What do you mean by change user agent to chrome? Asking 4 a friend
For a specific how to, there’s a bunch of firefox addons that do it, but the mozilla recommended one is this
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-string-switcher/
It’s super easy to use, just open it and it gives a bunch of options.
This is my current (fake) user agent;
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
With two or three clicks, this is my new (fake) user agent;
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
A few more clicks;
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; HLK-AL00) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.102 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/104.0.1293.70
And finally;
Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3; Trident/6.0)
Now, that last one is making it look like I’m using internet explorer… Youtube videos will not load with that last one active. Claims my browser is too old and not supported.
I don’t know why they all start with Mozilla/5.0 but the apparently a lot of websites will block your requests if you don’t have it (or a valid browser strings like it?)
Almost all user agent strings start with that Mozilla prefix because Mozilla made the first browser with “fancy” features, so in the early internet many websites checked for that string to determine if they should serve the nice website or the stripped down version. Later when other browsers added the features, that also had to add that to their user string so users would get the right site. Which just cemented the practice.
Just a reminder to not use user agent switcher unless it’s absolutely necessary, and if you do, limit it only for certain sites that need it. If enough people change their user agent, website operators will be like “See, no one use Firefox anymore. We shouldn’t bother to support it anymore”.
I don’t know why they all start with Mozilla/5.0 but the apparently a lot of websites will block your requests if you don’t have it (or a valid browser strings like it?)
This is a good summary of this mess: https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
I personally like seeing Mozilla loud and proud in all the user agents.
It’s a mess, but also an echo of history.
When you browse to a website, your browser passes info about itself to the server hosting that site. This info is intended to help the server provide the best rendering code for your browser. This is called your User Agent.
However, Google is using it here to identify Firefox users, and is apparently choosing to lump them all in a box called “adblock users” instead of trying to identify an ad blocker more accurately.
If you do change your user agent, I would use an extension that does it only on YouTube domains.
We want independent metrics to show rising Firefox use, not falling.
Yeah cool I’ll have a look. Any extensions spring to mind?
That’s because they may use code to detect as blockers that is not legal in the EU, so they might have thought that they’re super crafty and used markers such as user agent for their cool coercion delay code thingy
To add on
You can spoof this user agent to see if a website does something shady depending on which browser you’re using.
So if you keep all other variables the same, and just toggle the user agent value, YouTube behaves differently
How can we do that?
I haven’t tried it in a while, but I think there are browser extensions for it. Might need to ask someone else for how to do it these days
Supposedly Firefox users spoofing the Chrome user agent don’t get the issue because the script tries to execute the 5s delay in a way that works on Chrome but not on FF. Because the Chrome method doesn’t work on FF, it just gets skipped entirely. But I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate, just read about it.
But then shouldn’t there be a delay when using actual Chrome?
There’s people reporting exactly that if they’re using certain ad-blocking tools.
I did see Chrome users mention a delay (on lemmy) but I haven’t personally checked it out
My understanding is the method they can use on chrome is near instant, but the alternative they use on Firefox is slower, hence the delay. Is this BS? Yeah probably, but it does at least logically follow.
It could be as simple as for Chrome assuming there is a certain API, while for Firefox, give it a try and assume no if no response in 5sec
5sec vs 3x20sec.
Easy choice
The degree in which corporations engage in psychological warfare against customers is astounding. Not surprising, just outrageous. Don’t want notifications on? We’re going to ask you to turn on notifications in the the program every single day until you do it. Don’t want to watch ads because our infinite greed has destroyed what used to be a good platform with a reasonable number of ads before we bought it? Then we’ll make the experience less pleasant until you comply. They already make multiple parts of YouTube disagree with ad blockers on purpose to break the sites features. Not that I use anything other than NewPipe and Piped anymore anyway. I’m just sick of shitty corporations acting like we’re children who can be punished.
I’d still prefer to wait 5 seconds than have to watch a fucking sanitized corporate advertisement trying to sell me bullshit I don’t want and won’t buy with annoying fucking music, voiceover, and footage of people pretending to be happy.
Fuck off, Google. Good thing this will be easily bypassed anyway.
But wait, wouldn’t a 5 second pause on loading still be way better than sitting through minutes of adverts? :-D
Punishment my arse
I’ll take a 5 sec delay over ads any fucking day of the week.
Wouldn’t it be neat if YouTube had reasonable competition? You know, so when YouTube adds a five-second delay as a strange style of punishment, a different platform would look more attractive?
There will never be a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else is willing to run at a net loss for a decade before seeing their first profitable quarter, like Google did with YouTube.
Turns out, free video hosting is expensive as fuck.
It’s funny too because ads literally are a 5 second delay (at least) that you get when you dont use an adblocker!
I honestly think I prefer the delay over the ad.
Same. Give me the delay. At least I know that’s only five seconds, as opposed to a ten-second unskippable ad followed by another ad that I can skip after five seconds.
At some point Hulu did that - just like three, thirty-second blocks of silent ‘shame on you for ad blocking!’ I totally preferred that to ads…
Now I just don’t use Hulu?
I’ve been using Nebula. It’s a subscription-based alternative with no advertising, but I get it for free because I’m subscribed to Curiosity Stream (which is basically Netflix, but for documentaries).
The only downside to Nebula is that there aren’t a lot of content creators on it, so you don’t have the variety of videos that YouTube offers.
I’m still waiting for MindGeek to launch an SFW version of pornhub to compete with YouTube. If YouTube keeps getting shittier, they might eventually do it.
Turns out people don’t want to compete with something that runs at a loss. and as soon as someone figures out how Google will just copy them with a massive infrastructure lead.
Peertube is almost there. Just needs a good server really, most of the servers are too small for the market share. Or at least fit the general public, I’m loving it ATM.
All of the people saying “I’d rather wait five seconds than watch an ad” seem to be optimistic that it will continue to be 5 seconds and YouTube won’t keep upping it.
This is why I refuse to pay for YouTube. They are literally actively making the experience worse, rather than trying to make the paid experience better. This is laughable.
deleted by creator
Guess they’ll have to do a better job at convincing me that I should pay for what’s historically been free. I’ve never tolerated ads and I’m not about to start. At this point they’re encouraging me to carry on out of spite, underhanded tactics are just giving me more reasons not to do what they want.
You realize that they are only able to pay for “what’s historically been free” because of advertisements right? Google might be able to sustain Youtube even without ads because they have other revenue sources, but the vast majority of their revenue are from advertisements, and it would be a massive loss of money to keep Youtube up without it generating ad revenue. Hosting videos is one of the most expensive things a website can do. If we are to ever hope for other companies to compete with Youtube, we should expect for it to not be free. All that said, Google can still go fuck themselves though - I cannot possibly endorse their methods.
Yes, I do realize how terribly expensive hosting videos is. It doesn’t change my stance as a customer/end user, however.
deleted by creator
Dude you are the product. Or do you think that they didn’t build your profile based on your experiences and tastes and then sold it to other companies…
Wow someone hasn’t understood how the internet works
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Salty from the sound of it.
deleted by creator
Same holds for YouTube. They just got rid of the only no ads subscription here. Which was half the price of premium. So they kick people out of that, and afterwards going to war with ad blockers… If they really wanted as much people as possible to pay, they would have kept that abbo. But probably it’s better for them financially to have a bit more with ad blockers and ads and convert some to the premium tier
No, I think it’s a reasonable stance. I pay for Crunchyroll and Hidive because I like the paid service they provide, it’s a good experience that they are providing and I find value in it. Why would I pay for something that I don’t find value in, something where a company tries to actively downgrade the experience of its users rather than try to upgrade the experience of its paid service? I like services where they don’t try to actively screw over their users. I pay for Lastfm and Trakt too, because again I like the paid service that they provide.
It’s hard to provide something extra when all their content comes from users. They tried with
redtubeYouTube Red originals but those were pretty lame.deleted by creator
animepahe
Look, I think YouTube is one of the few major “social media” sites that net positive for social good. And it loses Google money every year with saving everyone’s videos forever and hosting 4k and even 8k content…
But you can’t withhold the carrot and use the stick. They’re eroding trust with the people that have liked and supported YouTube throughout the years. There are plenty of people like me, that would gladly pay some amount of money. Just not THAT amount of money. Create some payment tiers and decent benefits for climbing up it.
“supposed to”
Oopsie whoopsy, we accidentally made competing browsers disadvantaged.
Deliberate, disguised as accidental. Disgusting.
Hanlon’s razor - “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is not only adequately explained by stupidity, but it makes the most logical sense to be explained by stupidity. They are actively fighting a war with AdBlockers. They are trying to block AdBlockers, and AdBlockers are working as quickly as possible to fight those changes. Then Google has to fire back as quickly as possible. This is resulting in rapid published changes to counteract AdBlockers and their retaliation. It makes all too much sense that their fight against AdBlockers did not work as intended. The people making these changes are Google software developers, and I really do not think any of them have an issue with Mozilla.
I don’t know how stupid YouTube devs would have to be to:
-
Tie the delay that was supposed to fight AdBlock to user-agent (changing it to chrome fixes the issue)
-
Ignore Youtube Premium users that pay for ad-free experience
For those reasons I think it’s pretty safe to say that this goes beyond stupidity and into malice territory.
What evidence is there of this being user-agent based? I’ve heard people make this claim, but I have not seen evidence of it and when testing on my own machine there was no delay at all.
I’d wager Googles only releasing it to some users at first like they do with most things.
-
Unless you consider fighting adblockers a futile stupidity, you should first apply Occam’s razor - explanation requiring least amount of assumptions is probably the correct one.
In this case spoofing user-agent string of Chrome is enough to fix all the performance issues on Firefox, meaning there is no fancy anti-adblock code or anything like that.
Right, they got caught doing some hot button issue shit with the FCC talking about renewing the NN rules and they didn’t want to reignite the debate themselves. Google owns YT. Google makes money on ads, yeah, but they are also dominating the browser game with more people switching to firefox. Both explanations make sense, but only one of them calls for covering up/lying. Also, when any company gets caught doing something that they have some other excuse for, I’m liable to believe the appearance rather than the PR response.
This is under the assumption that the user agent change is real. I have seen this spread time and time again, and every time I ask if there is any evidence. So I will ask you as well: do you have evidence for it, or have you experienced it first hand? I have yet to have someone prove that this is true, and I have not been able to create it myself (I tried, but never got a delay to begin with). So until there is evidence that this is true, and not just a rumor being spread, than Occam’s razor cannot apply.
I saw this myself when this was news. Created empty firefox profile, installed only userscript changer plugin.
Default user agent - rotating loading circle before video starts playing. Windows/Chrome user agent - video starts immediately.
Tried with multiple videos, changing first user agent that opened the video to make sure it’s not cached somewhere.
Didn’t bother to install Chrome for reverse test though.
Now it’s back to loading at the same speed regardless of user agent though.
And basing it on user agent doesn’t even make any sense for fighting adblock, that only makes sense for targeting browsers, which their devs know because (I’m assuming) they’re not stupid enough to not understand a core part of their technology stack
Except Google has done the exact same thing to numerous other products and have multiple anti competition cases against them specifically related to Chrome. Hanlon’s Razor doesn’t apply IMO if there is a track record of the behaviour, as that clearly shows intent and premeditation.
There is no acceptable answer to “why do you make your own services suck?”
Because we need go punish those who have the GALL to not want to have consumerism shoved down their throat 8 times in a 5 minute video.
I know I have not be a very good echo in this echo chamber, but you don’t think it’s a tad ridiculous to say YouTube is forcing it down anyones throat? Nobody is forcing anyone to watch YouTube, yet you say it as if they are.
Not to mention they literally have a legitimate option to remove the ads, so they REALLY aren’t forcing it down your throat. Which means if the service isn’t worth it enough to you to pay for it or watch ads, don’t use it?
No you’re right, it’s no one is forced to use YouTube, however if you like any of the content creators it’s the only place you can find them. And the issue with ads, is that it’s not a few, it’s unskippable ads every few minutes so that there is so much being shoved at you. YouTube of 10 years ago was a much more enjoyable experience.
Do you think using adblockers to watch YouTube for free is stealing? It is, after all, getting a paid service for free against the services permission. If that is enough of a definition to be considered stealing (I think it is), then it’s quite easy to understand why they might make their own services suck.
Walmart has implemented plenty of inconveniences to combat shoplifting. Things locked behind glass. I’ve had to wait 15+ minutes for a Walmart employee to unlock a door for me to grab a $20 power tool. If that isn’t make services worse, idk what is. I am not saying it is right, but rather pointing how the double standards in the way we think. If you are going to be up in arms for ad blockers, I think you should also be up in arms about commercial retailers inconvenient anti-shoplifting measures. Both are means to stop users from obtaining the good/service without proper payment, even if it means legitimate customers get a worse experience.
And even if you agreed with the Walmart analogy, and also think the measures Walmart takes are on the same level as AdBlocker blockers, I think we can agree most people would not.
And if you do not think using adblockers to watch YouTube is stealing, I’m curious what your definition of theft is.
It clearly isn’t theft to use an adblock. It is simply electing what contents are played on your own machine. If it was theft to not download ads, it would be theft to grab something from the fridge during TV ads. Ad-absurdum we would end up in that black mirror episode where they force you to watch ads and lock the room.
That being said. I believe it is within googles rights to make the life of not paying customers hard. Whether it is a smart decision, is another question.
The difference is the content is being delivered to the TV. YouTube cannot advertise if you simply block adverts. It’s still advertising even if you walk away from your computer or close your eyes. It’s the same thing for junk mail. If you never get the junk mail, then it’s never actually delivered. But if you immediately shred it without ever looking, it was still delivered even if you didn’t bother to look. That delivery of advertisements is how Google funds YouTube. To prevent that delivery is to stop the transaction you agreed to. You are not holding up your end of the agreement for a non-free service.
To “simply elect what contents are played on your own machine” would mean not using YouTube. It wouldn’t mean using YouTube on YOUR terms
So do u believe its theft to turn your TV off everytime an ad comes on and turn it back on a few minutes later? I mean its a bit strange but I wouldnt go as far to call that theft
That’s the equivalent of just turning off your monitor when you get an ad. There isn’t any great comparison to cable TV and streaming services. Because you can consume streaming services while stopping the delivery of all ads. even using sponsorblock for in video ads. You cannot for cable TV. The best you can do is turn it off while they play, but they will play nonetheless.
The closest you get to it with cable TV is DVR and skipping the ads (some going so far as to auto skip) but you’re literally paying for cable TV. The fact cable TV as so many ads with how much it costs is absurd anyway. So of course you aren’t stealing because you’re already paying an inordinate amount of money for the service.
So I guess if one day YouTube has a paid service with ads, and you block the ads, the debate of whether its stealing or not could get pretty murky. The scebario is closer to tag switching at Walmart, which is still stealing, but I guess arguably less? But right now, while you aren’t paying anything at all for a paid service, it’s pretty cut and dry.
Your argument hinges on technical limitation: Since it cannot be confirmed whether snail mail advertisement was looked at, the delivery person gets paid for putting in the letterbox. Since the TV station does not know exactly how many people watch their commercial breaks, they get paid for broadcasting. Since streaming services can relatively accurately check how many times an ad was played, they only get paid for the exact number and it is stealing to not download it.
TV stations nowadays have much more advanced capabilities and they do know rather accurately how many devices are watching their signal. So if an advertiser wants access to this data and sees that people turn off their devices during commercials as @Dontfearthereaper123 described - should the advertiser be allowed to pay less? If the advertiser pays less, does turning off your TV become stealing?
If YouTube started to (legally) access your webcam. Would closing your eyes and plugging your ears during ads become stealing?
the delivery person gets paid for putting in the letterbox
This is precisely what I am saying. It is the delivery of advertisements that matters, not how many people actually see it (which is impossible to know in any advertising situation). Your TV analogy is not very good. During a broadcast, there is a live stream of data being sent to the TV. You cannot control what data is being streamed to that TV, you can only control if it’s being displayed on your TV or not. Therefore, you cannot stop the delivery of the ads. If you are watching a show live, you cannot skip past the ads. If there are 5 minutes of ads, the best you can do is turn off the TV or walk away for 5 minutes. If the ad wasn’t put in the broadcast to begin with, so never delivered, there’s no way in hell the advertiser is paying for it.
So to answer your last question, it has nothing to do with seeing it or not. Purely delivery. The moment the mail is in your mailbox, the content is delivered. But if you put a lock on your mailbox, it cannot be delivered. If someone puts up a billboard, it doesn’t matter how many people see it, the billboard is up. If you put your commercial in a television broadcast, it will indeed be broadcast. Though with the internet, people now have the ability to stop the delivery of ads altogether. Therefore, if you say you will pay for this service by receiving advertisements, and then the advertisements don’t get delivered, that would be stealing.
I back channels and projects I like on Patreon because yeah, I’d rather not steal if I don’t have to. But YouTube needs to know they are BETWEEN the content I want and me. I bought into Google Music and stuck with it through its change to YouTube Music, and it’s always come with YouTube Red/Premium. The kicker is I’m paying for a lot of my video content twice but I’m happy with it because it’s on my terms and not a PENNY of it goes to Jake Paul.
You’re right, a lot of companies suck and I wish most of them behaved differently.
“We know you didn’t do anything wrong. We meant to hurt someone else.”
Normally this is when I’d go all yar har fiddle dee dee, and don’t get me wrong Imma do a lot of that too, but a lot of my favorite video essay nerds are also on a platform called Nebula that’s dirt cheap, ad free and owned outright by the people who make the content. It’s a good way to balance the whole “people need to get paid for the content they make” thing with the whole “these platforms are predatory and abusive” thing.
So 5 seconds of silence… Yeah punish me daddy google.
I do not think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore, people need to stop using their services.
Do No EvilBe A Lil Bitch
No one’s going to unless someone recreates YouTube, which isn’t happening anytime soon.
It’s already been recreated (vevo, peertube, etc.) it’s just that those services don’t have anywhere near the content Youtube has.
Thanks fot saving my time answering for all of us
Sadly, the problem is that the small platforms tend to attract all the scum that was blocked on YT. You know… all the racist anitisemitic nazi conspiracy theory ridden brains.
- they don’t have Alphabet’s backing
The ad funded model is dying AKA endless free money is dying, it doesn’t work because there’s no real business there it works based on the empty promise of making money elsewhere on the products they are selling without any guarantee that the advertisement is what’s making them the money. The analytics are starting to tell them that it’s not as good of an investment as they once thought. Advertisement has become overvalued, that’s why people are saying that there is a bubble and that it’s going to burst, just like it happened before with the dotcom crash.
In other words a platform like YouTube is already very flawed. Sure you can make alternative video sharing platforms and you can get them by on donations (or maybe even nationalize it in some places) but that money making component for creators isn’t something that can be as easily replicated. They can do sponsorships, they can ask for donations, but donations are hardly anything to live by unless you’re famous, and sponsorships can have the same problem as the aforementioned over-inflated ad revenue.
Idk, this one is pretty easily explained by Hanlon’s razor. I’m sure others will disagree, which is fine, but it seems not only plausible, but likely that they intended for this to target all ad block users and not just FireFox. Google has waged a war with adblockers, and they are making quick retaliatory changes as the adblockers block the adblocker blockers. It’s literally Google making changes and people changing the adblockers back. It genuinely seems more realistic for them to have tried to target all adblockers than just FireFox…
Yeah except changing your user agent to chrome bypasses the load slowdown lol
Thanks to HTTP being a complete mish mash and meme of protocols and standards, there’s no way for google to easily target ad blockers without either significantly changing the entire youtube API, or trying to enforce stupid DRM bullcrappary by updating or pushing for a new web standard.
Even crunchyroll doesn’t crackdown on ad block even with DRM playback enabled.
Yeah except changing your user agent to chrome bypasses the load slowdown lol
Did you test this yourself? Rather than just ask your source, I was going to test it myself. However, I cannot get a slow down at all. Everything is loading instantly and ad-free. Perhaps the servers providing my instance of YouTube don’t have the change, I’m not sure, but I have not been able to personally create this. So without a reliable source or evidence, I cannot just take your word for it that changing the user-agent alone fixed the issue.
Rossmann tested it in latest video. No difference between browsers. And that dude is strong ad block and none Google browser supporter.
Pretty much. Doesn’t help that Firefox is the best browser for customizing your browsing experience. So all adblockers are very good on it.
Probably some summer trainee tasked with solving the Firefox + ublock Origin combo made an oopsie.
With all that said: fuck Google for even beginning their crusade against adblockers.
I’d rather a 5 second pause then see something trying to hijack my freewill.
