this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
1816 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3382 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Youtube let the other shoe drop in their end-stage enshittification this week. Last month, they required you to turn on Youtube History to view the feed of youtube videos recommendations. That seems reasonable, so I did it. But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don't get much from my choices. It still did a pretty good job of showing me stuff I was interested in watching.

Then on Oct 1, they threw up a "You're using an Ad Blocker" overlay on videos. I'd use my trusty Overlay Remover plugin to remove the annoying javascript graphic and watch what I wanted. I didn't have to click the X to dismiss the obnoxious page.

Last week, they started placing a timer with the X so you had to wait 5 seconds for the X to appear so you could dismiss blocking graphic.

Today, there was a new graphic. It allowed you to view three videos before you had to turn off your Ad Blocker. I viewed a video 3 times just to see what happens.

Now all I see is this.

Google has out and out made it a violation of their ToS to have an ad blocker to view Youtube. Or you can pay them $$$.

I ban such sites from my systems by replacing their DNS name in my hosts file routed to 127.0.0.1 which means I can't view the site. I have quite a few banned sites now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 294 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Don't assume ineptitude.

I've been in the position of being asked to implement an anti-feature. I made it take as long as possible to drive up the cost and designed it to be trivially bypassable because I'm not motivated to intentionally trash my own project.

[–] david@feddit.uk 126 points 1 year ago

I don't know who you are, or what you write, but thank you.

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 109 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Subterfuge at work, a fun subject to study.

Some of my favorites from a declassified WWII "simple productivity sabotage" manual:

  • Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

  • Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.

  • When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.

  • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

  • Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.

  • Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

  • Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable"and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

When I first saw these I was like goddamn, psyops got to my executive director!

[–] FUBAR@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like how work is done in large corps

[–] oce@jlai.lu 7 points 1 year ago

Or public administration

[–] bearwithastick@feddit.ch 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Wow, most of these points just sound like a responsible way to handle all the bullshit requests from employees. I'm not saying make it unnessecarily painful for employees to request changes. However, I currently work at a company that did the "just do it" approach for years, got big with it and now our department needs to clean up the bullshit of many years to get the company up to code with whatever regulations we are under and people still think we can continue working just like that.

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“Don't order new working materials until your current stocks have been virtually exhausted, so that the slightest delay in filling your order will mean a shutdown.”

See also: lean manufacturing

[–] pirat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds like how I buy shoes and jackets.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s I think the CIA sabotage handbook

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

OSS’s Simple Sabotage Field Manual, 1944 (declassified)

Good memory, it was the precursor to the CIA.

[–] atetulo@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

What's funny about this is all of this pretty much comes naturally when you're doing something you don't want to do without a reason to do it.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

WWII changed their name to BMV I think.

[–] Tick_Dracy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you know if there is a book (extensive article) which covers that in detail?

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

CIA sabotage handbook, if I remember correctly

[–] Tick_Dracy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I’ll take a look at.

[–] AssPennies@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OSS's Simple Sabotage Field Manual, 1944

There's a link at the top for the full pdf. And do note, OSS is Office of Special Services, the WWII precursor to the CIA - not Open Source Software lol.

[–] Tick_Dracy@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks (☞゚ヮ゚)☞

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Destroying them from the inside I see

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not all heroes wear capes, but you are a godsend!

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

the prejudice, assuming they don't wear a cape.

[–] DooDeeDoo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I always thought if youtube pushes the anti ad policy too hard they risk alienating the tech people who will end up on another platform which will start growing much faster. What they do is come up with half assed ad blocking. So casual people and people on locked systems like iPhone YouTube app are forced to watch ads.

Anyone not bothered by ads or Lacy enough will make Google money by watching ads. So they’re squeezing as much money without going too far. If they wanted to, they could have ads which would be unblock-able.

[–] atetulo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago