[atleta]

Lookig at it source (the page downloaded when you open a YT link pointing to a video), it's almost certain that YT doesn't load without JS. It's not an html page with some extra functionality implemented in JS, it's a web app that builds the web page you see from JS.

So firefox can't do much about it without actively trying to circumvent YT and YT specifically.

I don't think browsers made the turn you mention. It's more like browsers became more and more capable and web developers made use of it. Sometimes it's annoying because most websites are not websites anymore but apps (GUIs) that run in the browser and some of the web sites/apps people use could never work without it. Sure, we could all deploy those apps onto our machines (or have them deploy automatically in a sandbox) and there were actually technologies that did just that (think java web start or whatever the name ended up being) but they lost to what we have now: running these apps in the browser.

Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads. But sure, most sites don't offer this.

[matheusmoreira]

> So firefox can't do much about it without actively trying to circumvent YT and YT specifically.

There's no reason why Firefox couldn't do that.

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you.

Sure I can, uBlock Origin provides exactly that. They are not entitled to my attention. If they have a problem with that, they can return 402 Payment Required.

[_cenw]

That's excessive scope creep. Adding site-specific workarounds for some sites feels uncomfortable. Who decides what websites get "fixed", and how? That's a great bit to move to addons. Maybe recommend them more visibly instead.

Also, remember how Mozilla is funded.

[matheusmoreira]

> That's excessive scope creep. Adding site-specific workarounds for some sites feels uncomfortable.

Not to Google and its fellow corporations apparently.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29707078

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

They have site-specific fixes for their own sites. Instead of fixing their stuff, they fixed the browsers instead. We can obviously apply the exact same strategy to dealing with every single website out there. If a website is broken or generally annoying to use, just fix it by providing a site specific version of the browser.

They don't even need to reinvent the wheel. Port yt-dlp to Firefox. That will fix YouTube and literally every other video website out there. What yt-dlp does should be a core feature of every browser out there. It's that good. uBlock Origin too.

> Who decides what websites get "fixed", and how?

Whoever develops the browser or its extensions. Arguably the whole of uBlock Origin and its filter lists are just databases of site specific fixes. If people can maintain an extremely huge list of advertisers and blockers for every website out there, surely they can maintain something like this.

> Also, remember how Mozilla is funded.

I remember Mozilla has about a billion dollars in the bank. Who cares about their Google funding? I doubt they're gonna drop them anyway. I bet they pay them just to ward off risk of antitrust lawsuits.

[progval]

Firefox has this kind of workaround too: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/extensi...

[matheusmoreira]

Every browser does. I'm arguing they should have even more extensive workarounds for website idiocy than they do now. They're our user agents. Their purpose is to make the consumption of data from remote servers as painless as possible. They should totally fix sites in pursuit of that goal. Whether the sites want to be fixed or not.

[atleta]

There are a lot of reasons why Firefox or other browsers can't do that, but my claim was that FF (or any browser) can't do it without writing code specifically to get around YT. And this was a response to the parent who said that FF should (and could) simply just ignore the CSS.

> Sure I can, uBlock Origin provides exactly that.

Obviously, I meant that it doesn't work financially so there is no point being upset about it. If enough people block the ads then they'll do something about it. Actually it's not hypothetical anymore, I just started to see these warnings a few days ago. (I wasn't deliberately blocking the ads, I've been just using ghostery which, it seems, started blocking YT ads.) So yeah, in the end, as you also say, people in general can't consume ad supported services without paying with their attention. It just doesn't work business wise.

[Fnoord]

If youtube-dl (or its successor) can do it; so can a browser (extension). Whether the browser should natively allow this I leave up to the browser devs.

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads. But sure, most sites don't offer this.

Websites have various models: non-profit, donation-based, advertising-based, tracked-based. A website like YouTube still has high profit margins as they do tracking as well.

[hombre_fatal]

What’s the difference between tracking and ad revenue? If you refuse to even let them serve you ads (and won’t pay for premium) what exactly are you contributing to those who create the content that you want? Or is that just the creators’ problem?

[Fnoord]

Tracking data can be used long-term to profile and manipulative you as well as sell your soul to the devil. Whereas ads are a result of tracking data. If you want to combat ads then you want either no ads or you don't want relevant ads, and you achieve that by avoiding tracking.

One could say: "Google will keep my tracking data secure, because it is in their primary interest to do so in order to be the primary benefactor to their ad revenue." Sure, that holds some merit. Til Google figures a way to circumvent your ad blocker, til Google sells your data to a third party ("partner"), til Google gets hacked (and they were hacked by the NSA).

Data is a toxic asset; I rather give them nothing. But I do understand then they don't want me as customer. Which is why I do have YouTube Premium. But I pay an equivalent to ~2 EUR/month in Indian rupees to keep my family (especially my children; I got NewPipe x SponsorBlock x Return YouTube Dislike [1]) advertising free. And as much tracking free as possible while still using Android TV (too user-friendly to give up on) thanks to Pi-Hole and strict Google account settings [2].

Anyway, yeah, it is the creators problem. All too often creators do have a Patreon or Onlyfans or whatever, or they 'borrowed' the content anyway. Though they do get a hit, so it might be Google's problem. Cause they still get hosting and platform for free.

[1] https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe

[2] https://myactivity.google.com

[mandmandam]

> Also, you can't have an ad-free experience if the price of using a service is that the ad is delivered to you. On YT you can buy a subscription and you'll see no ads.

Just to be very clear, those are not the only two possible options.

YouTube - and Facebook, Google, Whatsapp, etc - are extraordinarily simple concepts. We don't need private corporations running them for profit. In fact, it's turning out really bad for us.

[yakshaving_jgt]

You're welcome to build an alternative and claim their kingdom.

The reason that hasn't happened yet is because whether or not you find YT an extraordinarily simple concept, the execution is tremendously difficult.

[Fnoord]

It has happened, claiming their kingdom hasn't happened because of network effect. Not because they're objectively better.

[littlestymaar]

The execution being nontrivial is not in fact the main reason why you can't just “claim their kingdom”, their biggest most is by far the network effect, not the technological challenges (which also nontrivial, is far more tractable today than it used to be when YouTube was founded, and even then it still only required 67 employees to build from scratch).

[yakshaving_jgt]

The "execution" I'm referring to isn't limited to the technical implementation.

I'm not sure why you decided to interpret my comment in the least charitable way.

[littlestymaar]

Unless you think the initial YouTube team that was acquired by Google had 67 engineers and nothing else, I don't get the point you're making here.

The fact that you can in fact execute (whatever you want to put in this) a YouTube alternative with a team of less than 100 is easily demonstrated by the fact that YouTube used to be this small at some point…

[mandmandam]

The execution isn't actually that difficult for things like Facebook and Twitter. As pointed out, it's a network effect thing; the same reason Bitcoin is dominant despite there being alternatives that are orders of magnitude better on every metric.

The cost per user to run most of those platforms is in the pennies range. Certainly under $4 / year / user.

Compare that to the cost of leaving our vulnerable minds - our parents and grandparents, or angry loners, etc - to the likes of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, who YouTube is weirdly obsessed with.

YouTube is a bit more expensive to run, sure... But the total cost is still a tiny fraction of the tax take, were we to fund a free and fair alternative ourselves.

Btw, expecting a fully viable alternative from a single person before you ever start exploring criticism or alternatives is wildly silly, imo.

[yakshaving_jgt]

As I already replied to an adjacent comment, the execution includes designing in those network effects and maintaining/modifying them over time. It also includes the moderation, marketing, operations, etc. It's literally everything beyond just the idea.

Furthermore, in no way have I stated nor implied that I expect an alternative must be implemented by a single person. I think your least charitable interpretation of my comment is wildly silly.