this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
1590 points (98.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

32371 readers
360 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

This seems like a pretty dumb thing to do to try to wipe out a browser with 2% marketshare.

[–] Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml 61 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"I'm switching from Chrome because they killed ad blocking."

"OMG! Firefox takes 5 seconds to even load webpages! I'll just go back to Chrome."

The goal is to prevent the competition from growing.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The EU should investigate this

[–] what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Do not worry Vestager lives for shit like this. She’ll make them bend over, take it deep, and pay her for her pleasure.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It won't stay at 2% if it's the only browser with a working adblocker.

[–] evanuggetpi@lemmy.nz 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately said browser is dependent on Google financing Mozilla.

[–] griD@feddit.de 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Obviously there a people in charge now who will never understand the Streisand effect. They could have kept it quiet and just... allow... the technical adept users to do their thing. Now, they are the laughing stock and get unwanted attention. Also, from my layman understanding, this shit won't fly in the EU at all.

Or, to say it differently: This is the best thing to happen to Mozilla in quite a long time and I'm a fan.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm out of the loop. What happened? Did someone decompile their code and find definitive proof of a throttle for Firefox?

[–] griD@feddit.de 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

some explanation

To be fair, they used setTimeout() and not thread.sleep() because the latter isn't possible out of the box in JS ^^

[–] Wild_Mastic@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Users who have ad blockers installed may experience suboptimal viewing

Yeah let me turn off the adblocker just for having an even more suboptimal viewing due to ads. They're lunatics.

[–] Thorned_Rose@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Thanks for the explainer! Also, Google's response is such a crock of shit.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

JavaScript is an interpreted language, so no decompilation is necessary, although this is repeatable by using a Firefox user agent.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You can build a virtual machine in JavaScript and execute compiled code on it

[–] palordrolap@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 2 points 11 months ago

Oh yeah, you shouldn't. But people do this for fingerprinting, bot detection, and other "adversarial" scenarios where you really don't like the person executing your code. It's somewhat plausible Google would use this technique to do something scummy like this (although that is not the case).

Relevant article and a great read: https://www.nullpt.rs/reverse-engineering-tiktok-vm-1

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I'm guessing that it's a way for them to test if ads have been loaded after initial scripts have run, but I'm not going to dig into the code.

Honestly, the whole ads thing is missing the point. If you desired a public video hosting platform, that needs to be a tax-funded commons. Video hosting and streaming is very expensive. Similarly, users should be donating to keep Lemmy going:

https://opencollective.com/mastodonworld

https://patreon.com/mastodonworld