YouTube is always on those whitelists.
I have this plugin, Leechblock and ublock filters (blocking any mention of shorts from the site) to make yt less addicting. And it kinda works.
0 - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-no-bu...
You can block globally or per website.
"But but Brave..." Yea they have their own crap on top, but it's still the Chromium rendering engine.
We should write an app browser with sensible layout and a qemu virtual machine backend. Pay the 5% hit to run actually performant native code that’s 100% sandboxed.
Couldn’t be any worse, that’s for sure.
I believe the core reason to be different: Microsoft lost the will to compete.
You can say any number of negative things about Steve Ballmer, but at least the guy tried. He tried. He may fail, but he would try, again and again, no matter how many time he would experience losses.
When he got replaced by a bean counter Microsoft stopped trying. It isn't just browser engines they've abandoned. There is no Windows Phone anymore. Windows 11 is worse on tablets than 10. Closing down their Apple Music competitor (Groove) etc.
Recently, they've been arguing for less exclusivity on gaming consoles and releasing their games on Playstation.
If we anthropomorphized corporations, modern Microsoft is the thin skinned loser who will fold at the slightest provocation.
There is no world no matter how much money Microsoft spent that it was going to out Apple Apple when it came to selling phones or convince manufactures to use Windows Mobile instead of Android with a lot larger third party app ecosystem.
Windows is not irrelevant. But it’s not where the growth is. Neither is selling phones really. Both of those markets are saturated. What benefit is their of Microsoft focusing on its own engine instead of using Chromium?
Tablets were overhyped. Even Apple realize that and publicly admitted more or less they took their eye off the ball and came back and started refocusing on the Mac in 2018. Google has basically abandoned any tablets and is focusing on ChromeOS.
The entire business model of selling subscription music and giving the label 70% of revenue is horrible. Spotify isn’t exactly a raging success. Apple Music exists as an ecosystem play to work well with their other devices as was iTunes before for selling iPods. Do you remember the disaster of the Plays4Sure platform and then the Zune?
Microsoft was right to focus on selling O365 everywhere and Azure.
> Apple Music exists as an ecosystem play
And so? Are you implying MS doesn't need an ecosystem of their own?
MS has. stopped. competing. That's it. That's all. Azure is not a moat, it's highly profitable but it also highly prone for disruption. Office is all they have left.
Man, they don't even need to have as much marketshare as Apple for their presence to be meaningful in the mobile market. They just need enough to be sustainable on their own and keep the competitors "honest".
The more MS transitions to cloud stuff and browser based apps the more they become Google's sharecroppers. It is NOT a good thing for markets to consolidate as much as they have over the past decades.
They have tried that for 20 years and failed. Why should Microsoft care about the “open web”? This isn’t the 1990s where the desktop reigned supreme. Microsoft makes money from selling operating systems, desktop and mobile office software and cloud services.
From a monetization standpoint, the web isn’t important to Microsoft.
> Azure is not a moat, it's highly profitable but it also highly prone for disruption. Office is all they have left.
Are you actually involved into selling and deploying cloud environments? I can tell you how hard it is to disentangle Microsoft from the enterprise.
“Disruption” by who? It takes billions of dollars to set up regionally redundant hardware at scale not to mention all of the services that run in it. Microsoft’s moat comes from its 40 years of being dominant in the enterprise.
> Man, they don't even need to have as much marketshare as Apple for their presence to be meaningful in the mobile market. They just need enough to be sustainable on their own and keep the competitors "honest".
You realize that Apple makes most of the profit in the mobile market? What use it to have a tiny market share in the unprofitable low end with low margins? Are OEMs going to pay for the operating system? Why should Microsoft care about the client? It’s making money hands over fist selling both zero marginal cost Office365 and much higher margin cloud services.
> They just need enough to be sustainable on their own and keep the competitors "honest"
There is no money by having a low market share and low profit margins product. How would it keep either Apple or Google anymore honest than the Firefox phone?
> The more MS transitions to cloud stuff and browser based apps the more they become Google's sharecroppers
That ship has sailed. There is no real money in selling mobile devices unless you’re Apple and have the premium market or you’re Samsung and also your own biggest supplier for parts.
> more they become Google's sharecroppers. It is NOT a good thing for markets to consolidate as much as they have over the past decades.
The desktop market has been basically Apple with a tiny market share, but the high end (profit wise) and Microsoft with the rest since the 1990s.
Now the desktop market is the same with Microsoft and Apple except for Chromebooks in education and the mobile market being Apple and Google. There is no world where it makes financial sense for MS to have their own engine instead of using Chromium.
> And so? Are you implying MS doesn't need an ecosystem of their own?
Apple’s ecosystem is phones, watches, home devices, and set top boxes.
Who would buy any of those from Microsoft? Hardware is a shitty low margin budinsss for anyone who isn’t Apple. Microsoft as a consumer company is basically dead. Sure they make a little money selling $30 Windows licenses for consumer PCs.
There were around 250 million personal computers sold last year in all. That includes Macs. Selling operating systems into that market is a nothingburger for a company the size of Microsoft. Computer sales only made up 7% of Apple’s revenue and they make a lot more money from selling computers than Microsoft does just from selling operating systems.
I don’t hate MS at all. They made me a good living when I was getting started. They actually spread the wealth (for small and medium sized shops at least).
My post was meant to be an indictment of Google.
This whole html/css layout shit with js sprinkled on top is nothing but a giant moat. Complexity for complexity’s sake.
You could render resolution independent vector art & text with pixel perfect layout orders of magnitude more efficiently. It’d be printable too.
It just laughable to be honest.
Google already gets more than enough data about your preferences without having to respect any of them.
[1]: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/autoplaystopper/ejd...
[2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/1d49ud1/manif...
"I do recall a Firefox discussion about how they can't 100% block videos because there will always be another way - eg do animated gifs count, or javascript that shows a rapid sequence of images [...]"
I also recall this being a justification given for auto-playing muted or audio-less video (i.e. because blocking "efficient" muted video playback will just lead to malicious actors using "less efficient" means of "image sequence" playback thus increasing the negative impact further).
On a related note, the other day I also discovered (while debugging why an audio demo didn't work the same way it did six years ago :D ) that there's now also a concept called "Sticky Activation" which can also impact "Autoplay of Media and Web Audio APIs (in particular for AudioContexts)"[1].
----
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43033814
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/User_a...
tl;dr: The browser attempts to learn your preference for each site automatically based on how you interact with videos. You can see what it's calculated by visiting chrome://media-engagement
Solid evidence that Google knows just what I want from a browser: a taste of vomit.
Oh god, that reminds me of another piece of bullshit Chrome magic. They made a system when the browser shares signatures of forms/fields with a central server, which sends back "crowdsourced" autocompletion rules, and they've made it almost impossible for developers to stop it from doing that [0] even when it's flat-out wrong and users are complaining about inappropriate autocomplete suggestions being shown/recorded.
Over the last ~8 years developers have submitted hundreds of examples [1] of why it's a stupid feature that at least needs a way to opt-out, but Chromium devs have kept it mandatory, and I suspect it's because Google/Alphabet is somehow exploiting all that leaked metadata about what forms people visit.
https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=status:open%20votecount...
(Vote count column not displayed by default.)
If its your website, just set it up like you want in the video tag.
Not sure why this post wasnt removed tho. This is just general issues you could have googled for a solution or askes a site dedicated to it such as stack overflow.
still seems to work for me?
No problem, just use a different browser.
I haven't really used chrome much in years, as Firefox is my main browser. But even with Firefox, stopping autoplay seems to be an ongoing cat and mouse game.
I don't expect you or my browser to start second guessing that with "oh, but probably it's OK on this site...?"
I do recall a Firefox discussion about how they can't 100% block videoes because there will always be another way - eg do animated gifs count, or javascript that shows a rapid sequence of images - but just because it can't be perfect doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
// ==UserScript==
// @name YouTube video page AutoPause
// @namespace https://greasyfork.org/en/users/13981-chk1
// @description Automatically pause YouTube videos on Youtube video pages
// @icon https://www.youtube.com/s/desktop/536ed9a8/img/favicon_96x96.png
// @include https://*.youtube.com/watch*
// @include http://*.youtube.com/watch*
// @version 0.3
// @grant none
// @run-at document-end
// ==/UserScript==
(function () {
'use strict';
/**
* Get element with selector and call callback with it.
* @param {string} selector Selector for the element.
* @param {function} callback Callback function to call with the element.
*/
function forElement(selector, callback) {
// Init forElement.timeoutCount.
if (forElement.timeoutCount === undefined) {
forElement.timeoutCount = {}
}
// Init forElement.timeoutCount[selector].
if (forElement.timeoutCount[selector] === undefined) {
forElement.timeoutCount[selector] = 0
}
// Get element.
const element = document.querySelector(selector)
// If element not found.
if (element === null) {
// try again after timeout.
setTimeout(
function () {
forElement(selector, callback)
},
(
// Base timeout.
100
*
// Increase timeout after each try.
(forElement.timeoutCount[selector]++)
)
)
}
// If element found
else {
// reset timeout count
forElement.timeoutCount[selector] = 0
// and call callback with element.
callback(element)
}
}
// Init previous video ID.
let videoIdCurr = null;
// Init paused video ID.
let videoIdPaused = null
// Init video element.
let videoElement = null
/**
* On playing event.
*/
function onPlaying() {
// If video ID has not changed from last paused one
if (videoIdPaused === videoIdCurr) {
// just return.
return
}
// Pause video
videoElement.pause()
// Update paused video ID.
videoIdPaused = videoIdCurr
}
/**
* Run on url change.
*/
function onUrlChange() {
// Get video id from url.
const videoIdNew = (new URLSearchParams(window.location.search)).get("v");
// If
if (
// did not get video id
videoIdNew === null
||
// or video id did not change
videoIdNew === videoIdCurr
) {
// just return.
return
}
// Update previous video id.
videoIdCurr = videoIdNew;
// Run for
forElement(
// video element that has src attribute
"video[src]",
function (video) {
// If video element is set
if (videoElement) {
// remove event listener from video element.
videoElement.removeEventListener("playing", onPlaying);
}
// Update video element.
videoElement = video
// Add event listener to video element
videoElement.addEventListener("playing", onPlaying);
}
)
}
// Add event listener for
window.addEventListener(
// Youtube page data updated event.
'yt-page-data-updated',
function () {
onUrlChange();
}
);
// Run on url change once on first load.
onUrlChange();
})();You can though?