| ▲ | hedora a day ago |
| Sure it is. They’ve done crap like make firefox or safari run hot on other Google properties in the past. Is it incompetence or sabotage? Who knows. The first rule of sabotage is to be indistinguishable from incompetence. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26184 |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo a day ago | parent [-] |
| Incompetence is by definition not intentional, and sabotage is the action of a rogue employee, not corporate strategy. A corporation can't intentionally sabotage itself, by definition. |
| |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau a day ago | parent [-] | | They're sabotaging non-Chrome browsers to drive people toward their platform with the strategically weakened extension API. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think that has any connection to the subject under discussion, which is about whether YouTube CPU performance would lead people to turn off adblockers. Not about getting people to switch to Chrome. | | |
| ▲ | Shared404 a day ago | parent [-] | | I believe their point is that people switching to Chrome _is_ turning off their adblocker. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo a day ago | parent [-] | | Why would it? uBlock Origin Lite blocks ads on YouTube just fine on Chrome. | | |
|
|
|
|
