- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
It would be nice if FTC or someone would sue them for anticompetitive behavior.
And, you know, broke them up into many smaller companies.
I wonder to what extent this will help, in the case of YouTube? Its so dominant of that market. Is it purely fiscal or also technical?
It probably would help, as Google couldn’t connect their advertising services that easily with YouTube, and both parties would have to be more independent.
Youtube is a money pit. If it had to split from Google, they will need to up monitization pronto or shut down. While I do want Google broken like Bane cracking Batman, there will be casualities. Too many parts of our internet infrastructure exist via subsidization and we use them like utilities. It is going to be messy out there if the FTC succeeds.
If your company need to do illegal shit to exist, your company needs to stop existing.
There are two US antitrust cases against Google right now:
- U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (2020) (in trial; list of many documents)
- U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC (2023) (Complaint PDF)
The first is related to things like paying to be the default search engine on iPhone, Firefox, etc. The second is related to ad tech. Neither really directly addresses the issues that average people have with Google’s behavior though, so keep filing complaints!
Google gets sued for this shit all the time, but do you think you’re going to hear about this on Google or Youtube?
Case in point, very few people know that they got sued for protecting multiple pedophiles as they were grooming kids on their platform.
Is this a violation of net neutrality? They are effectively not treating all traffic equally.
All current conversations surrounding Net Neutrality refer to ISPs being neutral. Since this is happening at the browser level, it would not technically be a violation.
For example streaming websites aren’t required to support Linux. It’s a dick move, but it’s not a violation to “block” users.
That isn’t to say this isn’t a dick move, it absolutely is, but as currently defined it isn’t a Net Neutrality issue.
Hmm, perhaps not net neutrality then, but it could be anti competitive maybe. Like the Internet Explorer fiasco from back in the day.
Just install the chameleon add on and set it to chrome. Problem solved.
Invidious and Piped fix this issue. You can use LibRedirect to automatically redirect all YouTube links to Invidious or Piped.
and UntrackMe on android!
UntrackMe is nice, but it’s not required for YouTube link redirection on Android as LibreTube and NewPipe natively support opening YouTube links.
Great if you have those apps installed, but UntrackMe also does twitter -> nitter, reddit -> libreddit, and a few other services too
That’s true and that’s the reason I use UntrackMe.
Makes sense and improves privacy but they’re not going to win on speed, not even on Firefox, unless you host a private instance or use a nearby-hosted one.
By default, when using Invidious, your browser loads the video right from Google, you can proxy videos through the Invidious instance but it’s disabled by default. Only Piped always proxies videos through the Piped server.
Wanting to archive the resources I found:
uBlock Origin has managed to reduce the delay in loading by a bit
I’ve been noticing this for a while now. I chalked it up to YouTube having ugly code, but now I see that it is simply malicious code.
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence*.
- Except for Google. This is the same company that decided that ‘Don’t be evil’ is inappropriate for them.
This doesn’t have any impact on video load times on Piped, does it?
