I would add to the list the Linux Foundation too.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...

I'll add that whatever the purpose of this project, it isn't going to help the overall openness of the web and will only continue to boost the adoption of an engine that already has an outsized influence over web standards.

Same for intentionally crippling Google websites on non-Chromium browsers: given how deliberate such acts of crippling are, I have reasons to believe that it's part of Google's "works with Chrome" strategy, and I'd doubt that Google employees can do much against it.

The only way to fix the governance of Chromium is to effectively chop all the threads that connect it to Google. As long as Chromium developers who are employed at Google won't do anything that goes against the strategy of their employer, you can't have fair governance.

I wish Linus & co would distance themselves from these people.

He actively dislikes the GPLv3, has a good working relationship with Google on Android and ChromeOS, and has criticized attitudes in the Linux desktop community for over a decade. He famously roasted his own distribution's package maintainer for wasting their life.

All hats off to him, frankly. The Linux community can be extremely delusional at times.

Linus has hated GPLv3 since at least 2006.

Linux development has been over 80% corporate funded for over a decade. FOSS contributors do not have enough talent or interest to maintain the kernel for even a few weeks. If corporate interests weren't in the kernel, the kernel would not run on modern devices, period. It would have fallen behind the times and been abandoned like countless other technologies, or replaced with a new proprietary kernel from someone else.

Linux on the desktop is not somewhat usable in spite of corporate interests. Linux on the desktop is usable today because of corporate interests.

It's actually the other way around: This is a collaborative corporate project, with corporate employees contributing, but there are some random community members who can knock at the door politely and are lucky to get code into the kernel.

The community-first development model died about 2 decades ago. When the Linux Foundation talks about "community," they are talking about their corporate contributors and their communities, not us. This is also why I cringe at the excessive (not all, just excessive) hate for corporations in the online community. Without their work, rip out 80%-90% of the kernel commits every year for the last decade, and see how advanced Linux would be.

This same change is also underway at another open source project - Blender; which is now increasingly corporate funded and developed. When I see online forum posts arguing that Blender is a perfect example of how we can beat the corporations as a community, I just shake my head now.

Most likely the corporations will say "because that is much cheaper than developing our own; 10 of our devs on Linux an 99% of devs from other corporations are much cheaper than 1000 of our devs on our own OS". And the shareholders will likely accept that.

The key thing is that for most corporations that contribute to Linux, Linux is not the product (except Red Hat, SuSe etc). Google, Facebook, etc, just need a good OS to run their billions of servers on.

> so we can fork when their interests stop aligning with ours

You can fork but you likely cannot maintain Linux as-is. Where do the 1M hours/year come from? That's hard to do in free time.

That is also fine from the perspecitve of Free Software. The 4 freedoms do not include "the program must be maintainable with little enough manpower for people to do it in their free time, free of independence on corporate interests":

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

The GPL is great in that it gives large power to users of the software, no matter if those users are corporate or personal, and even if the makers of the software are mostly corporations.

Maybe a question too radical for Hacker News, but why does Linux need 1M hours/year? How much "worse" would Linux be for the end user if this year, that time spent dropped to 100k or even 10k? And which "type" of Linux user was benefiting most from that time spent (person or corporation)? Why is more automatically treated as better than less?

> The GPL is great in that it gives large power to users of the software, no matter if those users are corporate or personal, and even if the makers of the software are mostly corporations.

Indeed, I respect the wisdom and forethought of Stallman greatly in drafting the GPL.

B. Most of the effort goes into hardware enablement; CPUs, GPUs, power management, etc. Without corporate interests, try running Linux 2.2 from 1999 on a modern PC (which came out just before the $1B IBM investment). See how well it works. Fork modern 2025 Linux, and try running it on a computer that comes out in 2028. See if it even boots. If Intel's only done a minor refresh, it might work; if it's something bigger like the split to P cores and E cores, expect a brick. Even if it does boot, don't be surprised if it crashes, acts unstable, has borked performance, broken sleep/wake, broken audio, broken USB, you name it, it's probably broken.

C. A forked Linux would not have the same level of security research behind it. For example, the Linux 4 era was marked by the introduction of fuzzers and the fixing of countless bugs. A C codebase with handwritten Assembly is rather unlikely to ever become bug-free. How well would your forked non-corporate codebase handle Spectre and Meltdown, just an example, with Google's experts contributing the technique for fixing these problems efficiently (Retpoline)?

D. Added to the above, this isn't a hypothetical: The FSF didn't like the practice of proprietary firmware blobs being in the kernel; so they made their own commercial-interest-free version of Linux called Trisquel. It still uses commercially written code if it's open source; so even it can't be called completely free of commercial influence. The kicker: It runs on almost nothing, and people were complaining about how it works on nothing 13 years ago.

TL;DR: A forked Linux, is a broken Linux, that will never run well on newer hardware, and will quickly become insecure.

In practice, I'm going to be honest and blunt, it's never worked.

3 decades of trying to replace Photoshop with GIMP (founded 1995)? Barely a dent.

3 decades of trying to unsettle Windows with the Linux desktop (KDE, 1998)? Barely a dent.

3 decades of trying to beat 3D packages with Blender (founded 1994)? Finally working now, ironically only because corporations started getting involved. Before then, Blender 2.7 was never going to do it.

2 decades of Apache trying to kill Skype with OpenMeetings (founded 2007)? Not even a dent.

2 decades of trying to kill proprietary CAD packages with FreeCAD (founded 2002)? Not even a dent.

4 decades of trying to beat Microsoft Office with what is now LibreOffice (roots in StarOffice, 1985, which was ironically a proprietary corporate project for the first decade and a half)? Barely a dent.

The Linux community, and FOSS communities, overestimate their strength without corporate interests. They have none.

  > Why should I care that Microsoft Office has more users than LibreOffice?

And all our customers often send us MS Office documents. They never use the fancy features.

I'm confused. Is FOSS is something more than someone or some entity contributing their time and releasing the source for for free? Does it really matter if thing doing the development is a a person in a garage or a company?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of difference to me. Both a people in garages and a company have kept their pet projects going for decades, giving away their efforts over all that time. Both people in garages and and companies have lost interest in open source projects. As an example Debian is one of the longest lived open source projects on the planet. It is a community drive development. To me it looks likely it will outlast Ubuntu, which is a fork that isn't community driven.

The central tenants that make FOSS work don't seem to have much to do with whether it's community driven or not. Both can succeed. Yes, community driven efforts can fail. But so can corporate drive FOSS, as WordPress may well demonstrate.

In more polite terms they are framing themselves as an ideal long term steward for the chromium project given that courts have already ruled that Google isn't a suitable steward anymore. Chromium wouldn't be so problematic if it wasn't run by such an anticompetitive organisation. If the Linux Foundation ran chromium and orgs like Igalia (who already do a near majority of the dev work for chromiumm) took over the brunt of senior development and leadership control then it'd be a pretty solid technology stack (albeit with some weaknesses).

I personally prefer Firefox and it's associated technologies but I also acknowledge the appeal of Chromium distributions like Vanadium.

Edit: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

Several leading organizations have already pledged their support for the ["Supporters of Chromium-Based Browsers"] initiative, including Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Opera.

As recently as yesterday I ran into an e-commerce site that didn’t work in Firefox (CPC Farnell, I’m looking at you), giving some obscure security error in multiple languages. I thought it might be caused by an extension at first (e.g., uBlock Origin) but, after trying various workarounds, I realised the site would only work in Chrome. It’s not OK.

Developers like myself are the thread that Firefox keeps hanging on by.

Yep. A majority of HN crowd claim to like open source and all that, but then they use Chrome instead of Firefox due to some small perceived convenience. Nobody makes decisions based on principles these days, only their immediate wants. Hoe_math is right, we're on the edge of civilization collapse because to that.

My guess is that the developers didn't actively try to do that, but used some framework that's all well an good for a SPA or something that needs to be more like a "real" application and applied that to something that just needs to be a bloody website. People need to stop doing that.

I've heard this before...

Oh yeah, replace Chrome with IE and you've got the same thing happening again.

But also - it's not high up the priority list given Firefox's marketshare. In most cases, you'll get the support by default, but I don't really see many US managers being tasked with allocating resources to support UC browser, or Opera, and those are both in the same space marketshare-wise.

My management is actively discussing EOLing several Firefox products because we have basically no real paying customers on them, and Mozilla is unpleasant to deal with in the extension space (genuinely - https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-lite-maker-ends-fi...)

I recently finished a 7 year stint at a company where I was CTO. I always made it clear that we needed to be testing functionality in more than just Chrome because, apart from anything else, a good chunk of our users would be on mobile, and many of those on iOS (i.e., using Safari). I used Firefox as my main browser for probably 4 - 5 of those 7 years, and I suggested engineers do the same because it tends to hew closer to web standards than Chrome does (meaning that if it works in Firefox it'll almost certainly work in Chrome, but the reverse doesn't necessarily hold). That gradually bled through the development team, with a number of the engineers using Firefox as their main browser. That's really all it needs is a few people using it for their day to day work.

I made the change on principle because I could see the way the wind was blowing and - even then - Google were doing plenty of things I didn't like. I like to think that influenced the team as well but, reality check, they probably did it to avoid me moaning at them about bugs running in Firefox all the time.

What I have seen is developers do it wrong to start, then tasks to fix it get low priority due to market share based priority.

The basic mechanic is that the off brand browser has to work hard to be compatible whereas the dominant browser works hard to be incompatible. If you develop Firefox first (have some really ideological devs) you'll find Chrome related bugs eat up 1% of your time if that. If you develop Chrome first you'll find supporting other browsers is a bear.

(In the early 2000's when IE was dominant I was afraid it wouldn't be possible to browse the web with Linux. I worked at a library that would have deployed Sun Rays as public computers if we could get Mozilla to compile on Solaris but we couldn't, even with the help of Sun support. I developed Mozilla-first and then Firefox-first and helped keep the flame alive back then.)

The system I work on now works on both because I develop Firefox-first. There's one screen that loads up 40,000 rows (crazy you say?) worth of data that performs fine on Chrome and is laggy on Firefox, but otherwise the site spins like a top on both of those. Once in a while we run into a serious headscratcher on mobile Safari that burns up some dev*weeks.

Firefox's performance engineers are eager for bug reports! You can record a performance profile [1] and file a performance bug report in Bugzilla [2]. It helps if the slow page is accessible to Firefox engineers for testing, but your performance profile is a big head start.

[1] https://profiler.firefox.com/

[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core&comp...

At the time I hadn't thought to go back to tech support and ask somebody there to simply try it with Firefox. Then Verizon would have been pointing fingers at themselves.

Any Verizon developers here? I'd love to know the real story.

Each browser seems to pick and choose which standards they want to adopt and when. Sometimes Chrome will support a new CSS syntax for months or years before another browser finally picks up support (or vice versa).

For web standards to truly work, there would need to be better coordination between browsers to adopt new standards in unison. Until then, developers (should) keep track of whether the syntax they're using is supported by all major browsers. Or, develop just for Chrome, which seems to be favored by most.

* Scrappy upstart catches the industry off guard * Wild success and growth * Becomes bloated, unable to innovate, and addicted to its cash cow * Begins turning the screws on its users to appease shareholders

Rinse and repeat forever...

It is very common the case that someone else will do something that aligns with your best interest. (love for example) In fact it is often in your best interest to do something that helps someone else and appears to harm you. (giving money to the poor at first glance appears to harm you and thus be illogical - but there are a number of secondary results of this that make it in your best interest anyway)

And now they own Github and they're training their AI models on you and your code and forcing that crap into a bunch of PCs. They were about to push out a "feature" to Windows that periodically took screenshots of what you were doing and used AI to analyze what you were doing. Then they sprinkle some glitter for the easily-distracted and tell you that it's actually a feature for you. Last I heard, they shelved the idea for now because of the backlash, but we all know they'll circle back around.

But, yeah, I'm a tinfoil hat weirdo who's just a "hater."

(I would actually extend this to all large businesses in general, but we can start with tech.)

sometimes im glad im a technical person that can get away with a somewhat "healthy digital life" im basically immune to all the crap going on. i don't need to work too hard to meet my digital needs because im also a simple person. but i really feel bad for the normies who have to deal with all the shit the tech industry throws at them. they don't even know what's wrong, they can't pinpoint what's giving them that extra stress, building up day by day when they use their devices, handle their info, or consume entertainment. like account exhaustion, confusing UI changes every day, or why they have to navigate a sea of crap just to unsubscribe. and why do they need a new computer for software that worked fine 15 years ago? and don't even get me started on what they're doing to older people. cable companies for example are ripping them off with terrible TV boxes and nonsense plans. all their appliances need subscriptions or apps and have cryptic buttons. stores now feel like border control, straight out of a black mirror episode. i can't imagine the frustration they must feel. it just feels backwards.

I'm not saying this to complain, but to suggest a risk of what might come next.

So far, they've run wild, and taken over computers, the Internet, AI, and information technology in general.

What happens when there's a disruptive breakthrough in medical care, and the exploiters rush in with the same thinking?

Right now, one of the few firewalls against that might be that doctors generally have traditions of ethics, and some stature to hold their ground and influence things.

Earlier Internet didn't have the same formalized ethical traditions, but had a lot of very smart people people who had altruistic intentions, as well as suspicion of those who'd attempt to twist online potential. All those ethical people were pretty much swept away in a funding gold rush, suddenly with little to no influence over it.

(Google did grab some of those people, because Google said the right words, so the altruistic techies thought it was their people, but look what eventually happened even there.)

Just like virtually every IoT product and Web site violates every user, what happens if a medical gold rush (say, some kind of implant, or transformative process) means that what we thought was a bulwark of ethical practitioners, is easily bulldozed over, by investment money and culture. And then everyone's body is violated by the newly unchecked industry-wide socipathy, with no alternatives to even live?

Allow me to simultaneously assuage and stoke your fears. There is little chance of big tech disrupting the medical field; Because every aspect of the medical field has already been seized by the insurance companies. See United Health / Optum.

Pretty sure that was happening back in a days when Opera was using own engine (Presto). They shipped browser with scripts to fix some popular sites. Actually Firefox also has some fixes for particular sites about:compat

Examples:

- https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/pa...

- https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/pl...

I guess they only want spyware browsers on DDG.

Is this actually a thing? As far as I'm aware all degradations in non-Chromium browsers have been unintentional bugs, either caused by a YouTube bug or a non-YouTube bug (i.e. in the browser or an extension) (note I'm specifically not commenting on the last portion of your comment regarding "for people using adblockers").

I don't think its "almost like", I think it "actually is", and that its intentional.

There is a perspective that is now prevalent in tech and business that users are good only as far as you can monetize them. Any concepts of respect or value outside of that have been discarded.

There used to be a sense that you needed to continue improving a product to keep charging the same or more for it. Now companies expect you to pay more every year while products are stagnating or being enshittified to extract higher profit margins on top of the increased prices they are charging.

Tech is now run by Business/Sales people, and every user is a statistic in a spreadsheet they are trying to extract the most money from for the least amount of investment.

Data collection and behaviour tracking is one side of the coin, but we really don't talk about why companies are willing to pay so much for that data or what they do with it... that's a conversation I think needs to be focused on.

While I agree; between an up-to-date uBlock Origin and https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/chrome-mask YT is quite usable.

Long term I'm more worried by Mozilla leadership than Google shenanigans.

> Please don't use Chrome Mask on YouTube. It won't resolve any issues, and it will make your experience worse over time. If some issue got fixed after toggling Chrome Mask on, it most likely got fixed by the addon clearing the cache. But you can do that yourself, too, without the need for this addon.

Might be a placebo but YT appear more responsive with it on than off after a ctrl+f5.

Edit: appears to be in the reviews: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-mask/r...

  YT is quite usable

Supposedly it's just been fixed?

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1i182q7/firefox_13...

Why would I, as a developer whose income stream is based on advertising, intentionally cater to users who are costing me money? There is a web based on hobbyist platforms like PeerTube and Mastodon, and you can clearly see why they haven't captured the masses.

You have your right to develop things your way, I have a right to say no thank you. Google, though, is so big it is basically saying "you don't have a choice." That's the problem and one that Google spends billions to enforce. They use the weight of the uninformed to apply pressure to the rest of us.

It was no better when Microsoft did it with IE, nor is it any way proper, now.

The solution you mentioned is valid too.

But you cannot ignore the fact that internet is for everyone and not for google. Google minus all the shit it does to the internet can definitely exist in some form. Claiming it’s either this or nothing is just defeatist.

If google and youtube disappeared tomorrow, I’d be the first among those guys who buy hdds and torrent videos from these. For no money, like I did with all torrents in my life. There would be less professional videos obviously, but almost everyone agrees it’s a good thing (quit SM, anxiety, kids social issues, etc talks).

Even a large chunk of the ad supported internet is happy to continue sending you bits if you don’t render their ads. This is fine, the convention has always been I’ll send whatever (non-malicious) bits I want, you send whatever you want, and we’ll render it however we want. YouTube specifically doesn’t send bits to people who don’t render their ads, on purpose, which is also fine, they just don’t want those of us who don’t render ads around.

Entitled ad guys don’t get to change the social convention to add some obligation to render their ads. If they don’t want to serve bits to users that block their ads, that’s fine, but if they send bits I’ll render them however I want on my system.

They know it. We know they know it, because if they really didn’t want to send bits to ad-blockers, they’d copy the first step of the back-and-forth that Google did with YouTube, and those users would no longer be a problem.

Because you are working for a corporation that joins in World Wide Web Consortium, who literally says this in the Ethical Web Principles?

> People must be able to change web pages according to their needs. For example, people should be able to install style sheets, assistive browser extensions, and blockers of unwanted content or scripts. We will build features and write specifications that respect people's agency, and will create user agents to represent those preferences on the web user's behalf.

https://www.w3.org/TR/ethical-web-principles/#render

If you cannot maintain your service, paywall your features, not forcing malwares and trackers to users. No one forced you to serve 1080p, 1440p or 4K videos to everyone for free. You were the one literally "advertised" yourself as a "free" service at beginning, in order to hoard how many users you could. And now when you cannot control your own costs, you push malwares and trackers to users? The mentality of hoarding users with "baits" like "free" are the real poisons for the internet, for both of you and your users, NOT users who are doing exactly what World Wide Web Consortium tells them.

Where are all your MBAs in your corporations? The ones bragging about themselves on LinkedIn and now the only resolutions you can think of is pushing malwares and trackers to users? All of the finance classes in your college should be simplified to advertisement classes I guess? That would save a lot of resources for everyone.

ABP was foolish and actually believed it's users were trying to make a statement about invasive ads. Really their users just didn't want to see any ads at all, ever, regardless of the circumstances.

> Really their users just didn't want to see any ads at all

Because the internet was filled with malicious ads before any content blockers having more people? The hazardours time of Windows XP/7 with malwares-affected from the ads appear like meals in every day's news? Sorry, internet ads are doomed from those times. They are migrained to everyone's minds that users are walking in a landmines with those ads. If a business is entirely dependent on those ads, that business should not exist. Doing business is hard, right? I mean, like, most of other ethical jobs on the world.

Users are just doing what World Wide Web Consortium says.

If a business have something to sell, just let people know. No need to help create a surveillance state.

Not YouTube.

Those "nonsense" are from World Wide Web Consortium, users are just doing what they say. The "hipster" are the ones not respecting those Ethical Web Principles. Users are not injecting trackers and malwares to those independents' servers. Why do those independents inject trackers and malwares to users' machines?

The ones who destroyed the open web are the business, including independents and corporations, with the mentality of luring more users to use their "free" services, without any plans of controlling the cost, ETHICALLY and MORALLY. Scale, scale, scale, more users, more beautiful number; until their pocket is burnt and now their resolution is pushing those trackers and malwares to compensate the cost.

Ads, malvertisements and trackers are not the open web.

Why would I, as a doctor whose income stream is based on people getting sick, intentionally support policies that make people healthier

Thank goodness you're not a doctor.

Asked as on mobile I run as few apps as possible, so use the web version. Haven't seen any issues.

The performance is way worse (which Google engineers will explain by some browser API being slower in Firefox and they haven't yet had time to optimize it, N years later [they did the same with Inbox + Firefox before]) and you'll also see more ads if you're not a paying user and using Firefox compared to if you used Google Chrome.

Can you please share sources regarding this? I'm not familiar with any instance like this.

I lived through that as a user. (I was one of the like 5 Edge Spartan users, I know, lol.) I could see the dumb animation in dev tools and manually delete it for better performance. It was a nice thing I had some technical skills. I know for mainstream users the solution was "watch YouTube in Chrome".

It's hard to find to other sources because Microsoft intentionally broke the SEO on the Edge brand and you know Google is the only other major search engine. Not that they'd intentionally down-pagerank bad news about a Google property, I'm sure.

IIRC the story was, when Youtube was redesigned a while ago they used an early spec for Web Components, that they were pushing to be standardized and was fully implemented in Chrome. But they had to add Polymer as a polyfill for other browsers. Then the version of Web Components we actually got wasn't entirely compatible with that early spec, so Polymer is still in use for non-Chrome browsers.

I don't know how much of that's changed since then, but the complaints are basically the same as when that happened.

The only glitch I reliably get is watching videos at 1.5x sometimes freezes video (but audio still plays). Expect that's more hardware and memory pressure related tho.

Also, I wasn't aware YouTube mobile has ads? I think uBlock might be eating them. Although possibly whatever is lagging others experiences too...

That would be the point of an ad-block add-on wouldn't it?

Unrelated to that, but on a Ubuntu laptop I have Firefox tabs regularly stop working entirely. They just won't load anything, and the only fix is to open a new tab and that loads fine most of the time. Other times I have to restart Firefox. I've tried searching for others experiencing this problem and even asked in Mozilla channels on Matrix, but even then I didn't come up with any answers. The laptop's hinge broke last year so I haven't used it since then, so likely never going to figure out what was going on.

What a strange confusion, as if all people must have the same "workflow". Sorry, no intent to sound negative, but why not give it some thought at least. It's "6 tabs", not "6 videos playing at the same time".

This seems intentionally YouTube's UX design fault, they too heavily try to push you to "auto-play". YouTube has a "Watchlist" feature where you can build a playlist. When it works it is exactly what I want, but it feels like every so many months it mysteriously breaks for a while or they hide the button for it behind some new hidden gesture or menu they expect you psychic out of their UI. (If you've never heard of "Watchlist", no wonder. It seems intentionally hard to discover.) Lately I've been complaining that YouTube adds random "auto-play" videos even to a manually curated "Watchlist" if you don't pay enough attention or watch past the end of the list (even with auto-play and recommendations entirely off).

I’m still using Watch Later, but for long videos I have no time for.

I expect YT is probably doing some preloading or heavyweight running in a loaded-but-not-playing tab.

Convert that to load-on-click, and you'll likely fix your issue.

The fact is, it doesn’t happen in Chrome for “magical” reasons, according to a comment few levels up. And regular non-tech users won’t debug this with click to play or whatever. We expect that YT does it absolutely intentionally.

It bends userbases however it wants due to its multi-dimensional reach, and we’re like “hmm maybe extension would help prevent accidental preloading issue”. I just don’t get it.

I have over 1200 tabs open at the moment, including at least 100 youtube tabs, and mine runs fine even with a bunch of other stuff running.

I do find that if I go over 150 windows open then things start to become problematic, but I think that's because my GPU is only 8Gb.

CPU is usually at about 10% on an i7-12900k.

Update your firefox now and the issue is gone.

It was basically the whole reason for the update.

Google changed their code to create a bunch of objects over time, and those objects didn't get cleaned up. It was just a standard memory leak issue.

Except it heavily impacted users who kept a youtube tab open or pinned.

The bug was reported and a fix released in a little under 2 weeks.

I think what's actually happening is that they are targeting uBlock + Firefox on desktop for punishment.

I mean if you care enough to not use the default mobile browser, surely you found out about newpipe and the myriad of other youtube frontends.

While using firefox mobile + ublock its easier to be logged into a youtube account and dig through favorites, etc.

On Android, Firefox has much more extensions, such adblockers.

FUD

The only problem I really remember is at one point Firefox having issues under linux when NVIDIA was swapping their main driver over to the "open-sourced" version, there was some performance issues with decoding, not unusable - but it was resolved within a week.

But, this is just my experience.

It's also crazy that we've let ad companies tell us that using a non-Google browser is the same thing as using an adblocker. It is not the same and it never was.

I use Firefox with no adblocker installed. I don't mind ads to an extent. I do mind tracking and find micro-targeting disgusting and creepy and evil, so I use Firefox, and I use its Enhanced Tracking Protection, and I only log in to the major Ad Companies like Google/YouTube, Amazon, Meta, others in dedicated containers that only are for their sites themselves. It's sad and annoying how many ad networks accuse me of having an adblocker just for using Firefox (or Safari) with relatively cleaner than average cookies.

Show me the old school of ads, the "Superbowl" broadest audience ads, the stuff that advertising companies "knew" for centuries of their existence as "common sense" that was the most useful way to make and sell ads before tech companies got involved and decided that user privacy was up for auction to the highest bidder. The way I see it: If an ad network can't do that and sees this as "adblocking", it deserves to die and something better needs to step up and eat their lunch. That includes Google and Meta's ad networks. That includes "Admiral" and any other network that buys ads from creepy "Temu".

The engineers implement all of the "features" that these management types decide on. I understand there are infinite engineers so eventually the features will get implemented, but I do not blame the managers alone for tasks done by unethical engineers who do not consider the effect of their work in the long run.

Can you explain this more? I don't understand what this means.

  1. Every video defaults to the absolute lowest resolution (240 or 320) until I manually switch it to a higher setting.
  2. Occasional (but fairly frequent) 30-second delay before a page loads (loads enough to show a black page, then just freezes for a while.  During this delay, refreshing the page gives the same result.
  3. Rarely, interstitial notice pages threatening vague consequences if I continue to use an ad blocker.

I avoid YouTube as much as possible anyway as they force me to login.

There's a pretty famous example of Google deploying a specific variations of Youtube to Microsoft Edge browsers (back when Edge had it's own engine) and that specific variation would cause Edge's hardware acceleration to break. If you overrode the user agent to present as google chrome, the problematic invisible parts of the page disappeared and everything worked as intended. And what the specific problem HTML was would change just as fast as the MS team could roll out fixes. In effect they were playing a game of "break the browser" against their competitors to force them to apply temporary fixes that would then later have to be removed resulting in unnecessary code churn in their competitors' code bases.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824

"Precedent", yeah.

Eventually competitors caught up.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_(JavaScript_engine)

Websites aren't expensive to run even on a slow interpreter. Even medium-complexity apps don't do much and could be written in python or ruby back then.

The only source of website lag is ads networks.

Managers.

So let them be arrogant and loose their YouTube customers over time too.

https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/wo...

Edit:Wrong year - that was 2020 this is 2024

https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/wo...

2024 is at https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/all/wo..., but the numbers seem to be identical.

But when I just want a simple search, I still use Google first out of habit.

In the grand scheme of things, they’re still a fairly young giant.

That’s what I’m saying. Search engines are still a part young technology in the grand scheme of things.

No reason to believe this is the end state.

It's such an unprecedented amount of money that it corrupts everything else and distorts the market.

If a creator puts up ads or a paywall, it's because they want to be compensated. You should either respect their wish or simply not view their content.

If someone wants to use a public space (i.e., the Internet), then they have accept that technological solutions to annoyances are also part of that.

Block it with a subscription if you don't accept this reality. But getting the benefits of a free, global audience doesn't entitle the artist to any means of revenue they choose, including what annoys and harms people.

It's like saying you have to walk the long way around to your exhibit through the concessions hall before seeing my display, when someone can just take a shortcut and skip that, and blaming them for doing so.

If someone leaves their purse on the sidewalk and you just take it, you're committing a crime. Consuming a restaurant's food without paying for it is also a crime. It being on the sidewalk doesn't make it not their property (or the property of whoever paid for it).

> The internet is not inside of someone's business, they are inside of it. It is a public space and if they publish without a paywall, I'm free to consume that how ever I like.

There's already many court precedents that no, you can't consume it "however" you like. For example, all copyright laws apply.

Ad blockers are a grey area in that yes, they're not disallowed, but that also means that companies are allowed to mess with you more or less however they want (YouTube for example throttles browsers with active ad blockers).

The benefit of the audience is literally the ad views (or Premium views).

Banksy said it better:

People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs.

On YouTube? No. I pay for Premium, there's no ads.

I pay for Amazon Prime, and they've started showing me preroll ads on my streaming content. I also still get sponsored product recommendations in my search list.

I pay for Kagi search. Thankfully, this area is still relatively clean.

I do agree, Prime is annoying with their ads, it definitely affects how much I watch on their platform.

YT might want me to do something else, but I am not bound by their wishes.

A local cafe I go to has a "pay what you can" business model. One of the smartest decisions I ever made was to go there and not pay. I seriously don't have to pay for one or sometimes two meals a day. Usually just a free coffee and bagel though. I recommend others to try it too. You can just not pay and they still give you food.

I cannot figure out why people still pay them. If they understood their customers, the food would just be free to everyone. But whatever, in the meantime I will eat free.

So as long as you make out your flavor of the month business as "greedy and evil" you can paint yourself a moral crusader by going there and taking things for free. How convenient, eh?

"This coffee shop is a terrible place, therefore I will eat there for free everyday in protest!"

(The content is on YouTube and nowhere else)

Until this changes and one can choose to go somewhere else, I wouldn't worry too much about the terrible cafe's income, because it is one of the richest entities in the world, it already shouldn't be that rich and powerful, and if it disappeared, it would finally let one go find coffee somewhere else.

The other possibility is to stop drinking coffee, of course. Though you can't really do this with everything.

Indeed, but it's the video hosting platform. Initiatives like PeerTube try to fix this, but most videos can be only found on YouTube.

> So I suppose those creators are all in on the scheme too?

Mostly yes. Creators today rely on:

- sponsors

- youtube ads

- donations

- merch

- other revenues, for instance if they have a business and their videos bring customers

At least you can often donate if you skip the ads and the sponsors, so there is a way to pay the metaphorical coffee.

Your analogy was shallow from the start. Continuing it makes little sense.

Of course, better yet is to take it up a notch and advocate for other people to also use ad blockers and to help install and configure them. Thankfully, with how invasive ads are, the advertisers are basically doing all the agitprop; all you need to convince someone to use an adblocker today is to show them how websites look with and without it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty_Model

where you have no "Voice".

At home we were talking about food ads on Youtube. Sure, once in a while you see an ad for a meal box that is actual food but I see a lot of ads for things like Huel which float in this strange space where it's not "I used to eat bread and meat and vegetables and now I drink all my meals" but where it's normal to drink your meals (they pose as if they were trying to persuade you to switch from some other meal replacement), where you have to work just as hard taking supplements every day as you would work lifting weights or not eating junk food -- there's McDonald's and there are ultra-processed foods, but this is ridiculous.

(A friend of mine received a huge quantity of 4Patriots dried food from his mom who was sucked in by some ad that claimed it was on sale because they made too much. We got some and the smell when my son made it turned my stomach.)

In terms of sponsorships there was the "Established Titles" scandal; I am a big fan of Ryan Szymanski who's a world authority on battleships. One day he got bribed to make a video about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapa_Flow

which was a good reason to talk about battleships and Scotland. Pretty soon he's adding a cringy pitch to all his videos and unfortunately it is so hard to give somebody like the right kind of "tough love" which will set him straight, although after the scandal popped most of the people involved went back to remove the junk.

This quickly led to a revolt from ABP users, and the ultimate collapse of the plugin. That is when uBlock was born and become the king.

What we have is a positive feedback cycle where creators are forced to resort to worse and worse ads to cover the cost of the ever increasing number of ad-block users. It's just plainly true that every revenue generating ad you block (not necessarily profit generating ad) is an ad that must be fed to someone else to view for you.

I've had a longtime gym habit which sometimes has me in front of the TV around noon where the ads are all for products for people who don't have any money. I remember seeing a series of ads where my first thought was "anybody except a TV executive or a politician would look at that and say it it's a medicare scam" and watching the ads for a decade before it got in the news that it really was a scam and people are going to jail.

Those ads win an auction to get there, they might be the optimal ads for that slot, but if you want to know why people have low trust in the media and low trust in the government, start there.

I watched Tubi a lot last summer, which is in a wonderful honeymoon period, and was watching saturation advertising for P&G products that featured upbeat black people cleaning up (their own messes) with Dawn and Tide. Great, I say. They've got some awareness that they shouldn't run ads that drive viewers away. Maybe targeted ads will be good for television but the specter of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

haunts the industry.

"I don't know how to explain that ads (and the "suckers" who view them) are what keep the internet running"

And no, this is not a personal attack. This is an evaluation of your character as stated in your own comment. You and people like you are everything wrong with the modern world. People like you are why we have the most productive economy in human history and still have people starving to death next to grocery stores full of food. People like you are why people work 60 hours per week and still can barely afford to live. People like you built this awful, inhumane system that we're all forced to live under that exploits us at every single turn because there is no law against doing so, and so you do it. You put the screws to every last thing in your life to get maximum value returned for minimum effort.

I genuinely do not use the word hate lightly, but I would use it here.

Even here on HN, the first thing people do when a paywalled article is posted is provide the archive.ph bypass.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AKA depriving content creators of their revenue. If you're saying their content isn't good enough to pay for directly, and isn't good enough to endure ads in order to engage, then why are you trying to consume it? Look elsewhere.

> or without the surveillance mechanisms that come with them

I agree with this depending on what you mean by "surveillance." There's a minimum amount of "surveillance" required to measure ad penetration and effectiveness and essentially provide assurance to advertisers that they aren't getting scammed. There's a whole other level of "surveillance" where the ad network (usually Google) is building a dossier on all your interests and every site you've ever visited. Some of that information enables targeted advertising, but you should always retain the right to opt-out, and see all the data that's been collected on you and edit it. You should also be able to opt-in to that data being sold and getting a cut of the proceeds, should you so desire. I wouldn't, but I could imagine some people would.

Bottom line - people gotta make money to eat and oftentimes they're not giving away content for free. If you don't want to pay for it - that's your choice as a user: pay and consume or don't pay and move on. Calling on hackers to figure out a way to steal it may not have a future that works out to your liking.

Oh, and it is an interesting problem. In the abstract.

You aren't entitled to their service, but they are entitled to your data (as allowed under the relevant jurisdiction) if you choose, of your own volition, to use their service.

YouTube or any of the others could simply put up a login gate, and then nobody could access any of the content unless they're logged in, and have agreed to additional terms of use.

As it stands, all the content is free and public. In legal terms, as per the Supreme Court of the US, the gate is up, and they are not entitled to impose additional restrictions except where allowed or required by law, such as age restriction, moderation, or copyright situations.

You are entitled to get those videos for free unless or until YouTube decides to lower the gate. That's how the internet works, and it's a wonderful, good thing.

Fuck ads. Block them all. Eventually they're going to be regulated and companies will be forced to stop mass commercial surveillance under threat of fines and hopefully prison time. Absent surveillance and mass data harvesting, adtech becomes much less lucrative, and maybe we'll see markets develop that compete on product quality, and value to the consumer, instead of the endless cycle of enshittified garbage and attempts to derail the open and free public internet.

Nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Department_of_Element...

I'm curious if you know of any court cases that back up your position. I've connected to a lot of servers today and downloaded all the information they sent me.

Connecting to the Public Internet, serving content to any and every connection, without login, means you are effectively broadcasting your content and have no legal basis to impose terms. This is why scraping is legal; the only defense against scraping is to put up a login wall - Gate Down. If the gate is down, you can impose your own conditions and agreements with the binding legal force of a contract.

"By continuing to use this site you're agreeing to blah blah blah" is cute fiction and has no legal bearing in the US. The internet works the way it does because it's empowered and protected by law and convention.

I have the right to manage traffic to and from a device I own. If your server sends me traffic, it's communicating something. If it sends me content on request without my having entered into a contract, then the default case is that I'm entitled to that content, full stop. It's up to you, the provider, to decide and manage how your content gets served, and whether you want to participate in the default mode of public access. By not incorporating a login on a server you connect to the internet, you are choosing, defacto, to participate in the public access mode of content serving, and are responsible for doing so. You are expressly granting anyone connected to the internet permission to download that content, making them entitled to it by the mere fact of connecting to the world wide web, in the same way that projecting a photograph on a public wall is expressly granting the public permission to view said projection, or by speaking in public, thereby granting the public the right to hear what you say, and so on, and so forth.

I'd hazard that a vast majority of users of the internet are completely ignorant about what servers and clients are doing, and the laws and systems which govern them. I can choose to block signals from ad servers, and i can choose to access content from a server over protocols which it's prepared to serve. Youtube does this; it's too valuable for them to remain gate up, thereby leaving third party clients and other methods of access on the table. It's perfectly legal, respectable, ethical, and moral to skip ads. I'd even go so far as to say it's immoral to participate in adtech, so by avoiding it, you're actively making the world a better place, even if it's only yourself.

My client: "Hey, I didn't pay, but can I have that data?"

Your server: "Sure! Here it is!"

I've used Pocket Cast for a little over a year and a half. Just manually skipping through ads when I have my phone handy and they come on, the app reports I've apparently saved 14 hours of wasted time.

I've been blocking ads in Firefox for nearly 20 years and have been helping friends and family do it for nearly as long. I'm not going back because I should feel bad for some company with billions of dollars in profits that doesn't care about me or any of my privacy. I go the extra step further and use the banned from Chrome store extension, Ad Nauseum, to click on nearly every single blocked ad.

that said, firefox has been my browser of choice as a web dev for most of my career. (im old enough to have used netscape before that).

i remember having super powers compared to other devs with the help of firebug :-)

FF has been my dailer driver for a long time. But google blocking ublock origin was a deal breaker. I now only use chrome when a site is otherwise unusable.

I am happy to do all that, because I like my videos uninterrupted and my web experience lean.

Mozilla is an advertising company now, and by many accounts Mozilla has been the main attack on Firefox for the many years even before they explicitly shifted to advertising.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/advertising/

https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/1e0p62h/mozilla_i...