Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gcb0 2967 days ago
summary: google allow 800 of the international youtube domains to autoplay, plus some 200 other publishers to pretend they are neutral.
4 comments

My interpretation of the article was that chrome ships with a blocklist of websites that have annoying autoplay features, but will automatically remove websites from that blocklist that you usually start by playing their videos, and automatically adds websites to the blocklist if the first thing you do is pause the video.

Youtube probably is not on the blocklist, but it will add youtube to your personal blocklist if you always pause the videos.

Other way around, as I understand it - they have a whitelist of sites that are allowed to play audio without interaction, everything else is blocked by default. (This is implemented in a way that completely breaks audio in a bunch of older web-based games and interactive audio experiences, too.)
Can you provide proof, this is completely unsubstantiated purely from the blog
> summary: google allow 800 of the international youtube domains to autoplay, plus some 200 other publishers to pretend they are neutral.

What? How is that an accurate summary? The whole post is about how Chrome will learn your preference for whether to autoplay on domains, not about how it is whitelisting certain domains.

The browser ships with a pre-whitelisted list. Those sites can autoplay videos from the beginning with no user interaction, which has dramatically less friction than unwhitelisted sites which must get you to interact across 20 different visits. That is a lot of friction.

Imagine if someone makes a YouTube competitor. They won't have autoplay for an user's first 20 sessions at minimum! That's significant

I understand. That's a valid point. It's not a valid summary of the post, when only the whitelist portion is mentioned by itself.
all youtube domains are whitelisted, and there's no way to remove. only add. summary is very relevant still.
I repeat, it's not a summary if you don't even mention the subject of the submission, which is the system to auto whitelist. It's a criticism, or a counterpoint, or even just a useful addendum, but not a summary.

Your point is valid. It deserves to be said. It's still not a summary of the submission, and presenting it as such is not appropriate, IMO. For example, the following would have been a possible way to summarize the submission and also express the additional information you presented:

Summary: Chrome will not auto-whitelist auto-play for domains based on learning your preferences. What Google isn't noting is that they allow 800 of the international youtube domains to autoplay, plus some 200 other publishers to pretend they are neutral.

I guess after that €2bn EU fine on the Google Shopping case they've learned to start pretending to be neutral before the fines.