Want to see Grumpy Cat (get shot in the head)



  • "Virginia shooting: Facebook and Twitter told to rethink autoplay video":

    MPs have called on Twitter and Facebook to take action after many users were confronted with autoplaying videos of the murder of a US TV news crew.

    Being confronted by autoplaying murder videos? Here's who you can thank:
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/uvwG2JK.png[/img]



  • Sadly, Twitter and Facebook were too busy covering for Ashley Madison victims to comment on changing autoplay settings.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    So, I wanted to crack a joke on how mozillas most advanced user would just use a plugin to stop all these random video-clips from playing automatically.
    Sadly the only thing I found was stopping youtubes autoplay, which is - afaik - not what is used on twitter and facebook all that much, right?

    Filed Under: "Where is Mozillas most advanced user?" - Grumpy Cat



  • @Kuro said:

    Sadly the only thing I found was stopping youtubes autoplay, which is - afaik - not what is used on twitter and facebook all that much, right?

    I don't browse those things on FF, but I never see them on Chrome. Oh:

    While both sites have it turned on by default, it is possible to deactivate it.

    But I guess we must have outrage!


    Ugh...I read:

    A parliamentary group said

    ..as, "a paramilitary group..." undefined


  • SockDev

    The only time it's acceptable to autoplay a video is when it's part of a playlist. Or I've gone to the YouTube page directly.



  • You never open multiple YouTube links in tabs?


  • SockDev

    @anotherusername said:

    You never open multiple YouTube links in tabs?

    Pretty much



  • And if you don't, nobody else should either?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    But opening a youtube-link with autoplay makes sense.
    I mean, you aren't gonna turn on the TV and go to a certain channel just to say "Oh yeah, btw. please also start showing me the content".
    If you don't want that, there are plugins to change that behaviour.

    The autoplaying things that are annoying are on other sites (sometimes with other content than youtube), where loading it already plays the video. Think of it as a GIF with sound.

    Filed Under: I probably didn't need to explain that and stuff but better safe than sorry



  • @RaceProUK said:

    Or I've gone to the YouTube page directly.

    NOPE!

    Someone tweets: "This is my soundtrack today: http://youtube.com/lasjdahfskjcdnahbsdgcgawyuehrwtgomgbbq"

    What music video is that? Is it a band I like? A song a like? A joke link? A rickroll? Click on that link to read the video's title, but before that even happens...

    "Video: Child screaming at blackboard nails for 10 minutes, High Volume edition (ft. Jay-Z) [Official music video]"

    MY FUCKING EARS!



  • @Kuro said:

    But opening a youtube-link with autoplay makes sense.

    Maybe if you can detect that the user is currently interacting with the page before starting the video. Background tabs are a real thing.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Okay, sure. See, I wouldn't say it's not improvable. But you have to admit that going on a specific youtube-page looks like you want to play a video on said youtube-page

    Filed Under: Also, your suggestion clearly disrupts the workflow of people who want to listen to two videos at the same time
    Also Filed Under: !Insert the XKCD-comic about workflow here!

    Addendum: Wait, I can't read! The workflow you describe is different from opening 5 youtube tabs now, right?


  • SockDev

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Someone tweets: "This is my soundtrack today: http://youtube.com/lasjdahfskjcdnahbsdgcgawyuehrwtgomgbbq"

    What music video is that?


    The oneboxing will tell you what the video is; you don't need to open the video to find out

    @anotherusername said:

    And if you don't, nobody else should either?

    You seem to be mistaking 'loading in background' with 'going directly there'



  • @RaceProUK said:

    The oneboxing will tell you what the video is; you don't need to open the video to find out

    Error: Dickhorse not found.



  • Actually autoplaying videos in a playlist annoys me to no end. It used to be that you could toggle the option on or off in YouTube playlists, but now the button that used to do that just toggles whether the playlist starts over when you get to the end which is a much less useful feature. I've had to develop a habit of pausing videos at the end so I can scroll down to the comments without the next video loading. (Note: I'm only talking about when you are in a playlist, I know you can turn off the autoplay for other cases.)



  • @Kuro said:

    Filed Under: Also, your suggestion clearly disrupts the workflow of people who want to listen to two videos at the same time

    People who want to listen to two videos at the same time can press the play button on both of them. The pages probably wouldn't load at exactly the same time, anyway... if they're trying to precisely coordinate the tracks, they should use actual audio mixing software, not try to get them playing at the same time on YouTube.

    @Kuro said:

    The workflow you describe is different from opening 5 youtube tabs now, right?

    Uhhhh... no, I don't think so?


  • SockDev

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    @RaceProUK said:
    The oneboxing will tell you what the video is; you don't need to open the video to find out

    Error: Dickhorse not found.

    Oneboxing isn't unique to Doscourse



  • "Loading in background" just means "going directly there in an un-focused window, tab, or frame".


  • SockDev

    You have a weird idea of going directly



  • Either way the server receives an HTTP GET. At what point in the process of serving up the page and loading it does it figure out whether it's being "accessed directly"?

    If you can detect that it's in the active window, tab, and frame, then sure, you can make the case that it should just go ahead and auto play it.


  • SockDev

    @anotherusername said:

    Either way the server receives an HTTP GET

    Lots of servers get lots of HTTP GETs; are you saying I go direct to a Google Analytics script when I load up a Tumblr post? Because if you are, then we may as well end this right here, as you're talking absolute bollocks.



  • I'm asking if there's some way for the page to tell the difference, so it can not start auto-playing unless it's appropriate for it to do so.


  • SockDev

    Yes



  • Dear god, burn it with fire. I don't want webpages knowing whether or not I'm looking at them, and I'm the kind of person that doesn't really care much about my privacy.


  • SockDev

    You don't want a webpage to know when it can turn off all its fancy effects 'n' shit so it doesn't kill your battery?

    Not that webpages do that, but at least they have the option.



  • @boomzilla said:

    >Sadly, Twitter and Facebook were too busy covering for Ashley Madison victims to comment on changing autoplay settings.

    They're also inept when it comes to deleting stuff which is very clearly hate speech and incitement to violence (Stuff like: "Bring back the concentration camps! Gas them all!" or, even more problematic, "Let's gather at the refugee's home and burn it to the ground!" which then actually happens).

    But they're really fast when it comes to deleting a stray nipple picture.

    A satire page finally brought it to its sad conclusion:

    [spoiler] [/spoiler]

    Of course that one was deleted due to sexual content.



  • @RaceProUK said:

    The only time it's acceptable to autoplay a video is when it's part of a playlist. Or I've gone to the YouTube page directly.

    Contrarywise, that's exactly the opposite of the behavior I observe. I have YouTubeCenter (userscript version, for raisins that may or may not still be valid) configured to disable autoplay, but it doesn't work on videos embedded in 3rd-party pages, so they do autoplay (at max volume, annotations on, and all the other stuff YouTubeCenter gets rid of on YouTube itself.



  • @Rhywden said:

    They're also inept when it comes to deleting stuff which is very clearly hate speech

    As well they should be.

    @Rhywden said:

    and incitement to violence (Stuff like: ..."Let's gather at the refugee's home and burn it to the ground!" which then actually happens).

    Wow...how often does that happen (that seems like the sort of thing that would make a lot of news, but I don't recall hearing of such a case, but maybe it's a German thing)? What sort of thing should they do to take this sort of thing down quickly?

    @Rhywden said:

    But they're really fast when it comes to deleting a stray nipple picture.

    Who cares about nipple pictures? Shit like that is an unimportant hanger on in free speech. Your view on this subject is horribly backwards.



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    but it doesn't work on videos embedded in 3rd-party pages

    Advantage of having an out-of-date version of Flash installed:

    1. Firefox won't activate ANY flash unless I explicitly click on it
    2. Don't get malware from installing a new version of Flash
    3. Youtube (and other embed) pages load up SUPER FAST, so I can easily use a plugin to download the video and watch it in an offline, stable player. No stuttering. No buffering. Jump about the video as much as I want.


  • Okay, but does that still work if a page has 10 YouTube videos embedded in frames?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @boomzilla said:

    but maybe it's a German thing

    Pretty much right now, yeah. The big "newspapers" kinda throw wood into the fire and the internet is the place that starts to burn as well!

    Addendum: By which I mean there are huge articles about refugees and how they should be sent home and how the goverment doesn't do enough, etc.

    @boomzilla said:

    Who cares about nipple pictures?

    Facebook and twitter apparently

    Filed Under: At least thats what I heard


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Lorne_Kates said:

    Someone tweets: "This is my soundtrack today: http://youtube.com/lasjdahfskjcdnahbsdgcgawyuehrwtgomgbbq"

    That video was lame. Here's one slightly more illustrative of your point. You'll have to turn up the speakers yourself.

    Cat nails on a blackboard – 00:07
    — cgdougmac


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @anotherusername said:

    Maybe if you can detect that the user is currently interacting with the page before starting the video. Background tabs are a real thing.

    The last thing that sites that use video ads are interested in is probably not having autoplay.

    Goddamnit I hope Microsoft adds extensions to Edge soon and someone ports Ghostery and Adblock.



  • The thing is that your opinion on this is really meaningless. Their own policy explicitly states that they do not tolerate hate speech, racism and other fancy stuff (the same policy which also bans nipples).

    It's the hypocrisy which has people up in arms and actually, if they continue on this path of being idiotic about it, will also land them in a lot of hot water as their actions are illegal.

    This, by the way, is a very good example of why your precious high-horse ideal of free speech does not work. But keep ignoring psychology, by the way, which has shown that ignoring such behaviour only leads to reinforcement of this - the mentality of mobs works differently from that of individuals.


  • SockDev

    @anotherusername said:

    has 10 YouTube videos embedded in frames

    Anyone who makes a page like that deserves to be on the receiving end of this:



  • @Kuro said:

    Pretty much right now, yeah. The big "newspapers" kinda throw wood into the fire and the internet is the place that starts to burn as well!

    Addendum: By which I mean there are huge articles about refugees and how they should be sent home and how the goverment doesn't do enough, etc.

    We've had that shit for centuries. But I meant not articles inflaming people's opinions but actually being used to rally people to go commit violence.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Rhywden said:

    Of course that one was deleted due to sexual content.

    Entirely understandable! I could've gone my entire life without learning that Hitler's rack was unbalanced.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    Who cares about nipple pictures? Shit like that is an unimportant hanger on in free speech. Your view on this subject is horribly backwards.

    I like titties as much as the next person who likes titties, but I don't want to see 'em popping out at me everywhere I go.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Entirely understandable! I could've gone my entire life without learning that Hitler's rack was unbalanced.

    He was also unbalanced down below.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Rhywden said:

    This, by the way, is a very good example of why your precious high-horse ideal of free speech does not work.

    Just because your people can't handle free speech doesn't mean nobody can.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Rhywden said:

    He was also unbalanced down below.

    I want to see that even less.



  • @LB_ said:

    It used to be that you could toggle the option on or off in YouTube playlists

    There's an appa plug-in for that.



  • @FrostCat said:

    @Rhywden said:
    This, by the way, is a very good example of why your precious high-horse ideal of free speech does not work.

    Just because your people can't handle free speech doesn't mean nobody can.

    Where exactly am I demanding that they delete stuff from Abu Dhabi?



  • Sadly, I have to be very careful about how many plugins I have enabled because I only have 6GB of RAM and Chrome is built for supercomputers.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Their own policy explicitly states that they do not tolerate hate speech, racism and other fancy stuff (the same policy which also bans nipples).

    Where do they state that? I just looked here and didn't see anything like that: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
    Maybe they have to have different ones for countries that don't have very robust speech protections?

    @Rhywden said:

    It's the hypocrisy which has people up in arms and actually, if they continue on this path of being idiotic about it, will also land them in a lot of hot water as their actions are illegal.

    What are they doing in the one case that they should be doing in the other. I mean, specifically, not, "Duh, take shit down!" Because that doesn't address the deluge of content that they have.

    @Rhywden said:

    This, by the way, is a very good example of why your precious high-horse ideal of free speech does not work.

    How so? What's not working here?



  • @anotherusername said:

    If you can detect that it's in the active window, tab, and frame, then sure, you can make the case that it should just go ahead and auto play it.

    I have even that disabled, because sometimes it may be the active tab when it starts loading, but by the time it's done, I've switched to a different tab. Don't start playing unless I explicitly ask you to.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Where do they state that? I just looked here and didn't see anything like that: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
    Maybe they have to have different ones for countries that don't have very robust speech protections?

    Facebook entfernt sämtliche Hassbotschaften, d. h. Inhalte, die Personen aufgrund der folgenden Eigenschaften direkt angreifen:

    •Rasse,
    •Ethnizität,
    •Nationale Herkunft,
    •Religiöse Zugehörigkeit,
    •Sexuelle Orientierung,
    •Geschlecht bzw. geschlechtliche Identität oder
    •Schwere Behinderungen oder Krankheiten.

    Die Präsenz von Organisationen und Personen, die Hass gegen diese geschützten Gruppen schüren, ist auf Facebook nicht zulässig. Wie bei allen unseren Standards vertrauen wir darauf, dass unsere Gemeinschaft uns entsprechende Inhalte meldet.



  • @FrostCat said:

    I like titties as much as the next person who likes titties, but I don't want to see 'em popping out at me everywhere I go.

    Right, but I mean...what's the principle at stake for tits vs people being able to express opinions? Your typical euro-fascist tells us how repressed we are that we don't plaster skin pics everywhere and then wonder why we don't have thought police to suppress wrongthink as expressed in wrongtalk.



  • Again, it's not opinions. This is straight: "Let's throw some Molotov cocktails at refugees' homes!" which then actually happens.

    And you're still not quite grasping the mob mentality problem. Figures.



  • @Rhywden said:

    https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards

    On that page I see this:

    As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.

    So I guess you're accusing them of ignoring the reports or something?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.