Technology

59429 readers

2794 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

331

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

YouTube blames ad blockers for slow load times, and it has nothing to do with your browser | The delay is intentional, but targeting users who continue using ad blockers, and not tied to any browse...::YouTube has clarified in a statement that users who use ad blockers will have a suboptimal experience regardless of their browser.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 173 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, sure. That's why it happens on Firefox even without an adblocker, and goes away when using a user agent switcher to claim you're using Chrome instead of Firefox while using an adblocker. Because it's toooooooootally about adblocking.

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I tried this exact scenario and didn't see any difference in load times. I'm using an ad blocker and it's definitely sluggish, but switching to a Chrome user agent made no difference.

[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 26 points 1 year ago

Yeah, people seem to be having very different experiences with it. It might genuinely be them rolling out different versions to different people to bug test it or something like that. Even if that's the case I still think its probably not unintentional that it hurts Firefox more. They do that too much for me to believe it's an accident.

[–] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It's hard to tell these days when there's so much A/B testing and stuff going on. I haven't run into this at all personally.

[–] Gestrid@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

It's actually been confirmed that the 5-second wait happens regardless of browser. Even with Chrome.

[–] Goronmon@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How thoroughly was this tested? Because you can summarize a lot of these types of timing differences with one word.

Caching.

And from my experience people tend to overlook this when running casual tests like this.

[–] MuThyme@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is 100% anecdotal of course, but I've noticed weirdly inconsistent behaviour. I have one tab I permanently keep open for YouTube and that one loads videos really fast. If I open a second tab by following a link from that main tab, then it partly loads the site and sits there for a weirdly long time before any content even appears.

I've got a really fast connection too, and nothing else was having issues. This whole thing is bizarre.