• @Rinox
    link
    English
    2856 months ago

    BTW, this:

    • @ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1346 months ago

      So this is part of a larger adblock checker, if the ad doesn’t load within 5 seconds, it fails and triggers the adblocker warning. Since the ad should load in 3, they’ve set it for 5. If you have ubo, you won’t see the warning that it then wants to pop up, it just seems (and is) a 5 second delay. Changing the UA probably removes this from Firefox because then the clientside scripts will attempt to use builtin Chrome functions that wouldn’t need this hacky script to detect the adblock. Since they don’t exist, it just carries on.

      • @localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        306 months ago

        I was wondering how badly out of context the above quote must be considering the UA isn’t checked in the function. Above poster is trying to construe it as a pure and simple permanent delay for Firefox.

        That being said, the solution is still bullshit.

        • @Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          126 months ago

          That is just the timeout function, not the call stack. It is likely called in a function that uses a UA check.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          66 months ago

          I was wondering how badly out of context the above quote must be considering the UA isn’t checked in the function. Above poster is trying to construe it as a pure and simple permanent delay for Firefox.

          The UA check can happen before the function is called though.

      • @Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        306 months ago

        The thing that gets me is they think no one will ever find this stuff. There are hundreds of thousands of people (maybe more) who are actively looking ways to block ads and get around this behavior. There’s no way it’ll ever go unnoticed.

        • @Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          166 months ago

          They could literally have used some variance in implementation, server side bandwidth limitations, etc, but THIS is just blatantly obvious

            • @Hadriscus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              56 months ago

              Exactly what I was thinking. Let’s not say it too loud for the sake of our mole(s)

            • @AeroLemming@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              46 months ago

              I hope so. I’d like to think we have a few people on the inside secretly fighting for the average consumer.

              • @fossilesque@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                66 months ago

                The world runs on the shoulders of disgruntled employees. This smells like a deliberate act backed up with a paper trail to protect the guy in charge of implementing it from taking the blame. But, I realise that also may be my imagination… It’s a compelling tale regardless.

                • Cosmic Cleric
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  66 months ago

                  The world runs on the shoulders of disgruntled employees.

                  That’s one hell of a phrase that should keep any CEO awake at night.

          • @Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -36 months ago

            I believe that Google is just trolling people real hard. There are much better ways to disable any adblocks, but they are not even trying.

    • credit crazy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      96 months ago

      Ok so this is just client side I’d imagine I’d be pretty easy to make an addon that removes the code

      • @TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46 months ago

        No, the full context of the code snippet doesn’t appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it’s most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.