• HKPiax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I love Firefox, but I can’t shake the feeling that it is slower on YouTube. My tinfoil hat theory is that Google somehow throttles YouTube on Firefox.

    • cowfodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m pretty sure someone discovered that is true recently, but can’t be assed to try to find it right now.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not tinfoil, they have been caught doing it and they continue to do it. It’s a scumbag company.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        How the fuck they haven’t been slapped with an anticompetitive is beyon - oohh right. End stage capitalism

    • Ananace@lemmy.ananace.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      One thing you can test is to apply a Chrome user-agent on Firefox when visiting YouTube. In my personal experience that actually noticeably improves the situation.

      • HKPiax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s super interesting! I’m not versed enough though, do you have like a tutorial you recommend or should I just Google it?

        • Ananace@lemmy.ananace.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          There’s a bunch of extensions that allow you to switch user-agent easily, I personally use this one, it includes a list of known strings to choose between as well.

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            And to check that it’s working, there are websites you can go to which will tell you what browser they have detected you are using.

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well, Google will probably optimize their shit for their own privacy invasion sniffing tool browser twice as hard as for Firefox and such

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Google does that a lot with their own web properties. I remember Google Meet didn’t support background replacement on Firefox, but switching Firefox’s user agent to Chrome suddenly fixed it.

      • Norgur@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s a really weird take. Like… what even is the difference supposed to be?

        This sounds more like “everything should be as it was back when <insert arbitrary point in time here>! When there were still Webpages, and we were frolicking about the internet! Until the fire nation attacked Web apps took over!”

        • Safipok@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Basically I am saying Firefox is not as performant as chromium when loading JavaScript.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Don’t agree, nothing noticeable for me anyhow. Chrome has the ultimate drawback: being under the control of a monopolistic evil corporation

          • Ananace@lemmy.ananace.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            In general, browser benchmarks seem to often favor Firefox in terms of startup and first interaction timings, and often favor Chrome when it comes to crunching large amounts of data through JavaScript.
            I.e. for pages which use small amounts of JavaScript, but call into it quickly after loading, Firefox tends to come out on top. But for pages which load lots of JavaScript and then run it constantly, Chrome tends to come out on top.

            We’re usually talking milliseconds-level of difference here though. So if you’re using a mobile browser or a low-power laptop, then the difference is often not measurable at all, unless the page is specifically optimized for one or the other.

    • adventor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Do you use YouTube so much that a small performance difference on a single Site has an influence on your browser choice?

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Same happens with Safari. The page loads in a weird funky way, video sorta first and then comments and suggestions many seconds later.

      On Chrome on the exact same computer it’s instant.

      They’re doing it on purpose.

    • sudo42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      For YouTube on IOS, I use Brave. It does a decent (but not perfect) job of hiding ads on YT.

    • Promethiel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      You haven’t experienced slow until you try to take Firefox through Google Cloud Console or Search Tools. 15 seconds in Chrome, somehow turns into 3 minutes in Firefox, funny how it does that.

    • LittleBorat2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ironically I use a chrome type browser for YouTube and mail checking only. This is also the only browser in which I am logged in with my Google account.

      My main Firefox is for everything else including search.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Google somehow throttles YouTube on Firefox.

      Because they do. A while back, it was discovered they were injecting delays if they detected Firefox as your user agent.