131–140 of 248 posts
I consider browser video autoplay more offensive than physical assault tbh.
Browser autoplay doesn't have the real-world consequence of needing medical attention and going thousands of dollars into debt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BigG couldn't do that (disable other user hostile media) because it would interfere with ads. Now I'm looking for a gif and canvas blocker for FF mobile. Any hints on how to tune uBO?
You can't turn off gifs or canvas because it would just break too much internet. I could imagine and equal reaction thread here if google deemed some gifs and canvas uses "unworthy" and were blockable.
That sounds like a challenge.
I think if there were a click to play button on gifs > N megabytes or > X*Y resolution, nobody would complain, nor would they complain about click to play on frequently updated canvases.
The Chrome Team really needs to be broken away from Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'only'
There are over 2 billion MAU on Google Maps...so for Google, yes its only... It wasn't sustainable
The cynic in me wonders about the timing of this happening shortly after backlash against the new Firefox mobile, and Mozilla lay-offs.
This thread is a microcosm of the problems with the world at large atm. 70% of the response are people frothing at the mouth outrages over those evil "other people" when the other people had nothing but good intentions. Then absolutely refusing to see those good intentions and painting everything as poorly as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't slack look at the size of a gif and skip playing it if it's bigger than 4mb or something? I'm reminded of Steve Jobs comment on 'toner heads' and why Xerox failed. Google is now run by MBA's and Ad people. So they will continue to do things like this.
It does, but the Slack servers still need to download the image first to know it’s size. There’s no equivalent for a browser. You could rely on Content-Length headers but then ad servers are just going to stop sending them.
(disclaimer: I work at Google, not on Chrome) The rationale here seems to be that by blocking video autoplay, Chrome incentivized sites shipping huge animated GIFs, or decoding video in JS and painting to canvas, both of which are very suboptimal for users. Another comment points to this issue: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=106364... quote: Unfortunately, full autoplay blocking is counter prod…
Then maybe the solution is to also have the option turn off animated GIFs and perhaps frequent canvas repaints too; and not simply give up completely ! In any case, just leaving the option alone so at least it has some effect like it did before, would still be better than essentially a full surrender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then maybe the solution is to also have the option turn off animated GIFs and perhaps frequent canvas repaints too; and not simply give up completely ! In any case, just leaving the option alone so at least it has some effect like it did before, would still be better than essentially a full surrender.
This is the common sense solution. And what sites are replacing videos with massive gifs? Buzzfeed-like sites have always been filling their pages with 250 megabytes of gifs. News sites with half a dozen autoplaying videos certainly won't be replacing their videos with multi-gigabyte gif versions. And it seems like detecting a large, constantly repainted canvas would be easy enough.