They were outright blocking it not long ago, so if they could still figure out who is doing it they’d probably just block them entirely again, right?
I think they saw it was kinda backfiring. If they make it inconvenient enough instead of impossible, people might give up? Or they are just trying to be dicks to people using ad blockers?
But that does nothing unless they tell us they’re doing that.
If I just see the service getting slow, I’m not going to “Oh this is because of my adblocker, better turn it off to go fast” I’m going to think “Fuck YT is turning to shit, it cant even load a page. I’ll go watch Twitch or something”
I agree with you but not everyone has the same thought process as us. I’ve explained it to my entire family and I always end up “fixing it”. My family doesn’t care about alternatives because they dont like things to change. “Why learn something new when the old way still works?” My family’s thought process on these things just doesn’t make sense to me sometimes but it’s the conclusion they get to.
Since they failed to kill yt-dl, and in the meantime people have built plenty of very easy to use solutions to completely bypass YouTube’s page, they may have finally realized that a nag screen with “subscribe for HD streaming” might be more effective than pushing even more people away.
?
This was overtly happening and reported on a couple weeks ago
From the same company that intentionally degrades the quality of Google Maps on Firefox.
Plenty of them if you just search. Not sure about maps, but I’ve read this multiple times about YouTube on FF from reputable sources
Comment from a ublock developer on this:
There is a lot of chatter in the last days about how Youtube is slow with content blockers. Those performance issues affect only the latest version of both Adblock Plus (3.22) & AdBlock (5.17), and afflict more than just Youtube. uBO is not affected.
Not an expert, but would our net neutrality rules that the supreme jerk Ajit Pai helped revoke have been a tool to combat this behavior?
No.
Net neutrality refers to prioritizing/throttling traffic between the provider and the client based on anything other than infrastructure limitations and QoS markings, to avoid a situation where client network providers could conspire with service providers to extort extra payments from clients.
It says nothing about the provider deciding to throttle, or even completely block/ban, certain clients. That would be separate legislation, like the proposals to prevent “de-platforming” by major social networks (see how Threads avoided giving access to people in the EU until they enabled some integration with the Fediverse, to avoid getting accused of abuse of power).
