Slashdot Mirror


Facebook's Auto-Play Videos Chew Up Expensive Data Plans

Another good reason to be annoyed by autoplaying videos online: it eats up dataplan allowances, making for some rude surprises. I'm always nervous about data allowances, and sites should be cautious about what they shove at you; turning off the autoplay feature isn't hard (and it's explained in the second article linked above), but I sure wish it was the default setting, or at least caught and handled by a browser extension. (Perhaps this is a job for Social Fixer's next iteration.) Is Facebook the worst offender on this front?

108 comments

  1. Slashdot dups also chew up expensive data plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Haven't we seen this news a few days ago already?

    1. Re:Slashdot dups also chew up expensive data plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't we seen this news a few days ago already?

      Yes, but Timothy felt it necessary to promote his favorite facebook plugin again.

  2. Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by guruevi · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...with auto-dupes of last week's stories

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why's that modded funny? Pretty damned informative honestly.

    2. Re:Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND auto playing flash plugins along side the auto dupes of last week stories.

    3. Re:Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Actually it's been moderated 80% funny and 20% informative.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    4. Re:Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by Bugamn · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought it was a dupe of the first post.

    5. Re:Slashdot chews up expensive data plans... by russbutton · · Score: 1

      One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote

      Unless of course, if you're black, gay, or an undocumented immigrant...

  3. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I wanted to see reruns, I would be watching TV.

  4. Autoplay is EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I almost want to blame it in Bush

    1. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by Rei · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is it any more evil than animated GIFs? Both play automatically, neither happen with sound, and compression on x264 is *way* better than with animated gifs.

      I was initially opposed to autoplay on FB, but after thinking about it, I changed my mind. We already see tons of animated stuff on web pages, and the videos from people who show up on my page about are usually things I'd find interesting (if the user posting them didn't usually post interesting things, I'd have stopped following them). There's no unexpected sounds to bug me, and the quality to size ratio versus animated gifs is, what, two orders of magnitude better?

      --
      "... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
    2. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by GNious · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is it any more evil than animated GIFs? Both play automatically, neither happen with sound, and compression on x264 is *way* better than with animated gifs.

      I was initially opposed to autoplay on FB, but after thinking about it, I changed my mind. We already see tons of animated stuff on web pages, and the videos from people who show up on my page about are usually things I'd find interesting (if the user posting them didn't usually post interesting things, I'd have stopped following them). There's no unexpected sounds to bug me, and the quality to size ratio versus animated gifs is, what, two orders of magnitude better?

      1) I suspect videos tend to be larger than Anim-GIFs by an order of magnitude
      2) Anim-GIFs do not have any sound, while video tend to have sound (ie. more data transferred even if muted during playback)
      3) Modern browsers have options for disabling auto-play of Anim-GIF, while similar control for video might be up to a 3rd party plugin

      Note how Google can use Anim-GIFs as a preview for YouTube videos on Google+ - I'm thinking they aren't doing this because it is fun.

    3. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      1) I suspect videos tend to be larger than Anim-GIFs by an order of magnitude

      While empirical evidence: animated gifs tend to have a lower framerate (maybe sub 24 fps?) than a comparable video file, and are usually smaller than 360 pixels across.

      Loading an animated gif tends to be longer/slower than the comparable Youtube video.

      Additionally, browsers can't detect the difference between an animated GIF and non-animated until it starts downloading (unless there's some new HTML tags that I haven't seen.) On the other hand, browsers can detect if a plugin/video is going to be activated before downloading them, and can trivially add a click-to-play dialog to prevent sudden download surprises.

      Modern browsers have options for disabling auto-play of Anim-GIF, while similar control for video might be up to a 3rd party plugin

      I haven't seen an option for that in Chrome or Firefox without going third-party - and usually you've already downloaded a chunk of data.

      Meanwhile, Chrome can auto-block plugins, allowing you to right-click on a plugin and run it - this occurs before the video/flash content is downloaded, saving bandwidth.

    4. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by Rei · · Score: 1

      1) I just went and pulled the first anim-gif I saw off 9-gag, a fairly simple thing of Ralph Wiggum with little motion, so it should compress quite well for an animated gif. Size: just over 400k. I then pulled the first video that showed up on my Facebook feed, a 30 second full motion clip, and downloaded the entire thing (including the audio stream, full quality). Size: just over 400k.

      So....?

      2) Are you actually sure that it is downloading the audio stream when it does muted autoplay? Not saying that it oes or doesn't, but do you actually have evidence either way?

      3) See the reply below.

      There's really no argument. If you're going to allow animated gifs, you should allow autoplay videos. So that we can finally put the nail in the coffin of the awfulness that is gif by removing the last common use of it.

      And FYI, 400k is not that much. Slashdot is a pretty simplistic website compared to most, and I just measured how much data is downloaded just to read the front page: 1.4M.

      --
      "... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
    5. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      400 kilobytes? For 30 seconds of video? That's barely a hundred kilobits per second. Are you sure that wasn't a reference movie to content at a different URL? Because that's not likely to be anything approaching what most people would call "full quality" unless the content started out as a postage-stamp-sized cell phone video....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Animated gifs were one of the many reasons I hated MySpace. Luckily you can disable auto-playing videos in your Facebook video settings.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    7. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm not lying, that's the actual size, something like 420k. It may have been a bit shorter playtime, perhaps 20 seconds (I didn't time it), but still, it was quite small.

      Nobody said videos on Facebook are Blu-Ray quality. But you seem to have weird concepts about how big videos need to be to be good enough quality for a web page. Just as a test, I took an original high quality full-motion video of a concert, reencoded it with ffmpeg, audio codec aac, vbr audio quality 0.5, video codec x264, preset veryslow, cf 33, resolution 512x288 (half original size), 20 seconds. File size? 420k. Of course the video from facebook was darker and quieter, so one would expect it to compress better. If we give my sample concert clip an allowable size of, say, 550k, then I can up audio quality to 0.7 and cf down to 30. Either way, the resultant clip was fine, the sort of thing you'd expect to see on a Facebook wall.

      Anyway, the key point is, Facebook feeds aren't loading you down with 50 meg videos, they're little couple-hundred-k clips, the same size as animated gifs. And while I haven't measured it, they don't appear to start streaming until you scroll down to them, and look to stop after you scroll away.

      --
      "... even though he sins so much that people cast him out of demons."
    8. Re:Autoplay is EVIL by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's animation at 15fps (cartoon). The video might nominally be 30fps, but the lack of actual motion between frames would be compressed away. They also said full motion. They didn't say it wasn't the size of a postage stamp.

  5. deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't I read about this days ago?

  6. get F.B. Purity by melios · · Score: 3, Informative

    F.B. Purity is available as an addon or GreaseMonkey script and already has the option to disable autoplay, among other things.

    1. Re:get F.B. Purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that work on Mobile Firefox? And does Mobile Firefox work on your phone?

    2. Re:get F.B. Purity by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Or you could just change the Facebook settings without downloading additional crap.

    3. Re:get F.B. Purity by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Until FB change it back again without telling you. Seriously fuck FB. How do they even still exist? Surely like the myriad of IM apps that sprung up when ICQ first got popular, someone can make the stripped-back, bares-bones, post sharing app that is just enough like FB to be usable, but with all the crap that makes it suck. I'm sure most people would be happy with an app that allows to connect to people, post comments and pics and that's pretty much it. I thought G+ was going to come to the party, but my god that is the worst pile of stinking shit I've ever come across (not really, Lotus Notes will always own that title).

    4. Re:get F.B. Purity by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Until FB change it back again without telling you.

      Oh my god, how horrible. My videos may autoplay again.

      Sorry but the possibility that someone may somewhere change a setting is still not enough to warrant going through the effort of setting up browser plugins to do what is already just an optional tickbox.

      Also you're assuming that people want a really basic system. Most people don't. As platforms like snapshat and twitter have shown they tend to augment things like Facebook.

    5. Re:get F.B. Purity by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Or you could just change the Facebook settings without downloading additional crap.

      Not with the latest Android app, you can't. The "Video Auto-play" option was removed.

    6. Re:get F.B. Purity by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not sure you're trolling, or just so immeasurably blind / stupid that you can't find an option that is on the first page of the settings.

    7. Re: get F.B. Purity by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't. The Play Store comments against the latest version are replete with complaints about this.

  7. Also see: sports sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not a big sports fan, and at this point the autoplay feature on pretty much every sports site has made me effectively even less of a sports fan since in the infrequent chance a sports news headline interests me I won't bother clicking on it unless it's from a non-sports site.
     
    Some news sites have started to pick up on it, with auto-play videos accompanying articles, to which I have to wonder why they haven't fired the writers if the articles are so worthless or redundant.

  8. autoplay sucks anyway by ihtoit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it kicks the snot out of the loadtime for the rest of the page as it seems to want to buffer the entire fucking stream first, I tend to go find myself another source. If slashdot ever decided to pull this shit, I'd go find a privately hosted nerd site. Or build my own. With blackjack and hookers.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If slashdot ever decided to pull this shit

      Doesn't it? I don't have flash installed so it doesn't happen to me, but I seem to remember it beginning to occur recently if I visited slashdot with chrome

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Sorry, CIG built one such site already, and guess what, they exceeded 52M bucks received.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      If slashdot ever decided to pull this shit

      Doesn't it? I don't have flash installed so it doesn't happen to me, but I seem to remember it beginning to occur recently if I visited slashdot with chrome

      Is it the ads? For all that site operators hate Ad blockers they forget to look at the bandwidth and compute resources their own advertisements take up. Especially flash ads.

      Of course, even if most sites did fix that issue, all it takes is one obnoxious site that's needed for something to convince a person to install an Ad blocker. Then there's the user tracking aspect....

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    4. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by MarkusH · · Score: 1

      I keep Slashdot on the whitelist to try to help support the site, but just today an ad auto-played. If advertisers don't knock it off, I'll sadly have to remove Slashdot from the list.

    5. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox + NoScript = No Autoplay.

      NoScript isn't just for blocking Javascript, it also stops flash plugins and videos from loading until you authorize them.

    6. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I keep Slashdot on the whitelist to try to help support the site, but just today an ad auto-played. If advertisers don't knock it off, I'll sadly have to remove Slashdot from the list.

      Slashdot is part of a big conglomerate these days. They're publicly traded which means their every thought must be about how to make more money for the shareholders. There's no need to feel guilty about blocking ads here. Do it, and be proud.

    7. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      They're publicly traded which means their every thought must be about how to make more money for the shareholders.

      Why does this FUD still get mentioned? It is bogus misinterpretation of a court case. Please stop repeating it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re: autoplay sucks anyway by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Firefox has a tap to enable, or click to enable for flash plugins now. I believe it is default now, since v3. I think.

    9. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're publicly traded which means their every thought must be about how to make more money for the shareholders.

      Why does this FUD still get mentioned? It is bogus misinterpretation of a court case. Please stop repeating it.

      Every CEO and BoD seems to believe it is the raison d'etre of the company to maximise "sharehold value" at the expense of clients/customers.

    10. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not FUD and you know it, shill.

    11. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Because of things like this:

      http://bgr.com/2014/08/15/appl...

      Investors have filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging that the companyâ(TM)s various anti-poaching agreements ultimately hurt the companyâ(TM)s stock. The class action suit was filed last week by Apple shareholder R. Andre Klein and it alleges that the anti-poaching agreements then-CEO Steve Jobs put in place with Google, Intel and other companies were a breach of Appleâ(TM)s responsibility to Shareholders. Klein says the agreements were misleading to investors and ultimately damaged the value of the company.

      There is no legal obligation to focus on profits. But there is a legal penalty for losing a shareholder lawsuit. So what happens is, a company announces some new method, described vaguely, for increasing future profits. Shareholders buy. stock prices barely move, or drop because revenue doesn't increase as announced. Now it's fraud.

      As a company, traded or not, for the longevity of the company, they have to be focused on profits. If they also give a forward looking statement, even though disclaimers follow, the general idea is that they announced higher future profits, and must deliver. No penalties if they don't, unless a shareholder suit comes along.

    12. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      If slashdot ever decided to pull this shit

      Doesn't it? I don't have flash installed so it doesn't happen to me, but I seem to remember it beginning to occur recently if I visited slashdot with chrome

      Is it the ads? ...

      Yes, it is. I just had audio suddenly come blasting out of my speakers. I hunted down the tab where I had the Slashdot homepage open and closed it, and the sound went away. I really can't afford to have stupid video ads sucking the bandwidth away from my VoIP when someone might call me, or weird audio coming out of the blue when I am on the phone with a client, so I guess I just won't be coming here much anymore.

    13. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by disambiguated · · Score: 1
      There is a legal obligation to focus on profits.

      A fiduciary duty is a legal duty to act solely in another party's interests. [...]

      Examples of fiduciary relationships include [...] a director and her shareholders.

      source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex... (aka the first google result for "fiduciary duty")

    14. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      No, they must try to make a profit, if that is what the corporation is for. Not all are. But the specific wording I objected to was:

      They're publicly traded which means their every thought must be about how to make more money for the shareholders.

      There is nothing saying that larger profits are the only thing a corporation can think about or focus on. If that were the case, every time a corporation gave to charity, or used company resources (money, vehicles, personnel, publicity, etc.) to sponsor an event, they would be sued by the stockholders for ignoring their fiduciary duty.

      So, no, the fiduciary duty of a corporation, and its directors, is not simply about making as much profit as possible for their stockholders. The court case that settled this, and that people refer to without having read it, basically states the exact opposite of kelemorv4's claim. Your definition of fiduciary duty is simply that, a definition of a term. Not how it is applied in the business world, or in all the countries with their own differing laws.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Is it the ads? For all that site operators hate Ad blockers they forget to look at the bandwidth and compute resources their own advertisements take up. Especially flash ads.

      They don't forget, they simply don't care.

      There's a huge difference. The guys in marketing want their fancy ads and their impressions, they don't care about your bandwidth.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Since CVS stopped selling smokes does that mean they're going to get sued? I haven't seen it yet even tho it is common knowledge that their cigarette sales bring in about 2 billion dollars a year for the company.

      Maybe you need to get over your own lies.

    17. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There is a legal obligation to focus on profits.

      No, there is a legal obligation to act based on another party's interests, not based solely on another party's financial interests. Shareholders have interests other than money—having clean drinking water for their kids, supporting cultural growth, improving the quality of education, not getting buried in lawsuits from the government when you cross a legal line (though this one arguably is financial, just over the longer term), and so on. That's why you don't see shareholders suing companies for giving money to charities, for example. A purely financial misinterpretation of the word "fiduciary" would make such donations illegal.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      What, besides profit, is in the best interest of all of the shareholder of a publicly traded corporation? Giving to charity and sponsoring events are examples of enlightened self-interest. Take it too far and you will be sued by your shareholders..

    19. Re:autoplay sucks anyway by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      Companies can be and are sued for giving to charity. It's not illegal because it can be in the (financial!) best interest of shareholders in a variety of ways (encouraging further investment, improving the corporation's image to customers, ... many more) Of course shareholders have other interests, but those interests are not why they are investing. They might choose to invest in one company over another for those reasons, but they are investing in the first place to make a profit. Otherwise it's not investment, it's giving to charity.

  9. Socialfixer can't fix... by __Paul__ · · Score: 1

    ...the app. Only the website.

    --
    worldmobilenet.com -- World Prepaid Wireless Internet plans
  10. The real facepalm is here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The BBC this week reported that there have been in excess of 2.4 million ice bucket-related videos posted on Facebook, and 28 million people have uploaded, commented on or 'liked' ice bucket-related posts.

    Really?

  11. Not a problem for me by Mishotaki · · Score: 2

    It's not a problem for me, I use Opera 12, i need to click to activate plug-ins before they even get downloaded from the site!

    1. Re:Not a problem for me by ledow · · Score: 2

      Same here.

      Stop whinging about your browser allowing shit and treat data from the Internet as untrusted and unable to initiate actions without your explicit consent.

    2. Re:Not a problem for me by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not a problem for me - I DON'T USE FACEBOOK!

      --
      Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  12. This pisses me off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been so pissed off every since they implemented this.. I won't even open facebook on my iphone unless I'm connected to Wi-Fi somewhere. I can't believe there isn't a preference setting somewhere to turn off this irritating behavior.

    1. Re:This pisses me off! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      There is. One setting for browser and another setting for the mobile app. But the mobile app will still autoplay if it detects it's on wifi instead of cell data network.

    2. Re: This pisses me off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is, go into settings, then Facebook and then settings again. The option is there, albeit not well placed or advertised, but it is there.

  13. Let me get this straight by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook slurps up all your personal information and sells it to advertisers. It also slurps up all your friends' and family members' information - even if they aren't on Facebook themselves - keeps it in so-called "shadow profiles", and sells that to advertisers as well. Facebook also routinely changes its privacy controls without notice, and the new versions of the controls default to the most permissive settings - so you have to continually monitor them to "minimize" (in quotes because it's still a lot) how much of your personally identifiable information leaks out to the world at large. And they occasionally make policy changes that force you to share stuff that you'd previously tried to keep confined to within a small group.

    And what you're worried about is they might use more of your data plan?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Data plans have an immediate cost at the end of the month.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Data plans have an immediate cost at the end of the month.

      Absolutely. For better or for worse, people care the most about what impacts them in the most visible and immediate way.
      In life, understanding human nature is 100x more useful than understanding computers. More geeks out to try it.

    3. Re:Let me get this straight by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Data plans have an immediate cost at the end of the month.

      Not everyone has a data cap. Does that invalidate the parent's point? Nope, didn't think so.

    4. Re:Let me get this straight by tepples · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has a data cap.

      And not everybody who does have one can afford to move to an area served by a carrier that doesn't impose one.

    5. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's right.

      What's your point?

    6. Re:Let me get this straight by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      Have you published your understanding of human nature somewhere? I'd love to see the equations.

    7. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever considered not being a sanctimonious turd? Nope, didn't think so.

  14. Re:If slashdot ever decided to pull this by rnturn · · Score: 1

    Autoplay, shmautoplay... I'd be thrilled to figure out how to access /. without the auto-refresh crap. I am fine -- more than fine, in fact -- clicking on the page refresh icon myself thank you very much.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  15. Flashblock. by kayditty · · Score: 0

    or at least caught and handled by a browser extension

    I've been using Flashblock for years. who hasn't?

    1. Re:Flashblock. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I've never used Flashblock.

      I removed Flash from my system.

    2. Re:Flashblock. by Elbart · · Score: 1

      It also blocks autoplaying HTML5-videos, or at least did so some time ago.

  16. Re:If slashdot ever decided to pull this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Use Adblock Plus or something to add a filter like this: a.fsdn.com/sd/autorefresh-query.js?*

    No more autorefresh.

  17. Videos play automatically? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the videos that I see on my news feed play automatically. I need to tap the thumbnail for the video to play. I am using the Facebook app for Android. Go figure.

  18. Pay For Ad Free by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

    I paid Slashdot $5 or $10 a few years ago, and have't seen an ad since.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Pay For Ad Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I haven't paid them dick and STILL don't see any ads.

    2. Re:Pay For Ad Free by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      And I haven't paid them dick and STILL don't see any ads.

      So you are a free-loading asshole?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Pay For Ad Free by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      And I haven't paid them dick and STILL don't see any ads.

      So you are a free-loading asshole?

      Some of us earned it via means other than money. But I'd actually be open to whitelisting everywhere an adserv which promises and delivers malware-free and video-free ads, and even doing things like helping it know what ads to serve me. (I'd see it as cutting down on my need to figure out who actually has what I want: if I can do that, and they don't point any ads my way, then I am fine with figuring they don't want my sale.)

  19. I Just Want Your ATTENTION!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, Facebook is so terrible with their rude auto-playing videos. Meanwhile there are three advertisement videos started automatically on the front page of Slashdot. Pot meet kettle.

  20. Autoplay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I forget to upgrade or something? this does not work for me at all.

    When did they introduce this feature into Links anyways?

  21. Yet more addons that fix hipster design fuckups. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back when I first started using Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox years back, one of its best features was its extensibility. It was easy to install and write addons that could drastically improve the browsing experience.

    These addons were almost always adding useful functionality. Firebug is a great example of this, where it makes Firefox much more useful for web developers. I'd also installed other addons that added new functionality to Firefox, like the ability to take screenshots of entire web pages.

    These days, though, more and more of the addons I'm installing aren't to add useful functionality to Firefox, but just to fix really fucking stupid design decisions made by hipsters. The UI of Firefox, starting with Firefox 4, has continually gotten worse and worse. Now I have to install a handful of addons to undo these idiotic UI changes. It got even worse when Australis was forced upon us.

    Thankfully I don't use Facebook, but if I did, this would be yet another addon I'd have to install that doesn't really improve the browsing experience, it just helps avoid stupidity forced upon us by some hipster designers over at Facebook.

    Something is seriously wrong when I have 2 or 3 addons that add useful custom functionality to Firefox, but then another 10+ addons that just fix asinine UI changes made by the Firefox devs, or that block asinine website functionality like auto-playing videos. Seriously, these hipster designers need to go. Everything they touch ends up much worse off.

  22. Laff by koan · · Score: 1

    It's not like Facebook is in cahoots with content providers....

    Who uses Facebook?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  23. more media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a new data plan 21 months ago. It was enough to receive my news, software updates, LOL-cats photos and sometimes, 100MB of porn every week. If I did that now, my weekly allowance would last 5 days. Software, photos and web-pages in general have gotten much bigger. I use a video down-loader to avoid wasting my download allowance on repeated video streaming. So I dislike auto-play videos.

  24. cnn is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    almost every article has a video now. it's worse because the volume isn't set to mute and you can't pause the video till it has started playing.

    1. Re:cnn is worse by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      Your solution is....extreme. Sometimes, I want to watch the video. Chome lets you set plug-in exceptions on a per-site basis, but it is buried away. (chrome://settings->Show advanced settings->Privacy->Content-settings->plugins->Manage Exceptions...)

      just add [*.]cnn.com as an exception with "ask" as the new default. I imagine you could do the same to facebook. Now, instead of an autoplay video, you get a nice grey box that you can click, if YOU decide you want to watch the video.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    2. Re:cnn is worse by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, build a browser that doesn't support the video tag. Let the ad networks fall back to Flash. Wait, do any ad networks actually use the video tag yet?

  25. Re:Yet more addons that fix hipster design fuckups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What do you expect?
    "All the cool hip kids got out of college in the middle of the last decade and got employed at all these places. (Microsoft included)

    Instead of nice, useful, usable interfaces with the ability to have advanced toolbars enabled for various types of work, we got shit like Ribbon and a triple-bad menu with everything behind it. And because of silly over-optimizations by optimization freaks, the menu isn't even always loaded and can get unloaded to save memory, so when you open the menu, it can lag a little with heavy drive IO, or even an intense-ish program. AWFUL.

    Instead of nice, customizable interfaces, we get same-crap forced on us because browser vendors think alienating people,- that surprise me with the ability to be able to even breathe - is a bad thing.
    No depth now, all bright solid colors and minimal border use. Gotta have curves everywhere as well, because screw efficient layouts.
    "But you have a good computer, why not use those specs to their best ability?"
    IT'S A FUCKING BROWSER, THAT IS WHY.
    The same shit excuse was used for that god-awful Windows Vista interface with its GPU acceleration. NO, get LOST.

    I HATE software now. It is getting worse by the year. Why the hell do people exist? Why can't we just nuke ourselves already? Hurry up Putin, you coward, I don't want to live in this world where even more awful "artists" get their hands on more software and ruin it.

  26. I Work For a Portal Company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work for a portal company; if you have one of the major ISPs in the United States, you (well, actually, your non-tech-savvy family members) probably use our services in one way or another. We've been pushing out tablet and phone versions of the portals and we have been forced to add auto-play videos. One of our marketing people was shocked - shocked I say - when he asked me what I thought of our current phone portal and my response was, "I'm glad I have flash blocked and ads blocked." I went on to tell him that I generally don't mind ads if they're not obnoxious, but auto-play videos and all that crap are not only an extremely poor user experience but they also waste tons of bandwidth that I, quite frankly, cannot (and will not) afford on my data plan.

    It isn't that us software folks don't tell our marketing folks this stuff. We do. Constantly. We HATE it when we have to add more tracking code and video advertisements and other crap like that, but unfortunately too many companies see only short term dollar signs. They are "Short Term Greedy" instead of "Long Term Greedy" and they will, eventually, be badly hurt because of this.

  27. Mobile Browsers too by stkris · · Score: 1

    Mobile Browsers who when you click on them start to download all over again the last page you visited the day before. This page is in 99% of the cases not interesting for me. But the instant reload gobbles up my data plan. Chrome I'm looking at you!

  28. Re:If slashdot ever decided to pull this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bingo! I did that a year or two ago. It does have the side-effect of breaking a couple of other minor things, but whatever they were they are so trivial that I don't even remember them anymore.

    Of course there is always http://soylentnews.org/ instead...

  29. cnn is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ^^^^^

    I mean at least let me play wack-a-mole and hit the pause button as soon as the page loads so I can ignore this auto play rubbish.

    There is a solution that beats all others - goto webkit.org download code, build a new browser that doesn't support the <video> tag - HEAVEN.

  30. IMO this is a good thing by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong.... I hate video autoplay.

    But I feel that things like this will ultimately result on pressure on carriers to correct the real problem: The dataplan allowances are way too low, AND 1 Gigabyte of data is priced way too high.

    So by having autoplay..... ordinary folks will be using more data, BUT they're not going to want to pay a lot, so there is going to be pressure on carriers to increase data allowances

    1. Re:IMO this is a good thing by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong.... I hate video autoplay.

      But I feel that things like this will ultimately result on pressure on carriers to correct the real problem:
      The dataplan allowances are way too low, AND
      1 Gigabyte of data is priced way too high.

      So by having autoplay..... ordinary folks will be using more data, BUT they're not going to want to pay a lot,
      so there is going to be pressure on carriers to increase data allowances

      Or pressure on the customers to pay more. Guess which one is automatic?

    2. Re:IMO this is a good thing by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Or pressure on the customers to pay more. Guess which one is automatic?

      This is why it's so important to make sure there can't be any major mobile carriers doing any further consolidation and buying out of competition. Customers should be free to move away from carriers that will want them to pay more.

  31. Ob Red Dwarf: by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they might be able to give you a hand with your punctuation.

  32. Turn off Facebook video autoplay by trawg · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're logged into Facebook, this link should take you straight to the settings page where you can disable the auto-playing of videos:

    https://www.facebook.com/setti...

    This should work for most people - although my brother (on Mac OS X) was not able to see the 'Videos' sub-menu (which for me appears in the list on the left at the very bottom).

    I only use the FB website on my mobile (the constant addition of new permissions turned me off the app), and am not sure if you can disable it within the app.

    1. Re:Turn off Facebook video autoplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're logged into Facebook, this link should take you straight to the settings page where you can disable the auto-playing of videos:

      https://www.facebook.com/setti...

      This should work for most people - although my brother (on Mac OS X) was not able to see the 'Videos' sub-menu (which for me appears in the list on the left at the very bottom).

      I only use the FB website on my mobile (the constant addition of new permissions turned me off the app), and am not sure if you can disable it within the app.

      Except that frequently autoplay will start happening again despite this. My settings still had it disabled, turning it on and off again did nothing to help. I have to rely on a browser plug-in to consistently disable this nonsense.

    2. Re:Turn off Facebook video autoplay by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      -1, anti-informative
      That setting affects auto-play in browsers, not in phone apps which is what the original articles explicitly refer to.

    3. Re:Turn off Facebook video autoplay by balbus000 · · Score: 1

      This may have been added after the story originally came out, but I found this.

  33. Annoying by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    The autoplay feature is very annoying! Here's to hoping that Facebook gets its collective head out of its ass and rectifies the situation.

  34. Got in Trouble at Work by nephorm · · Score: 2

    I got in trouble at work because of this feature. I had facebook open in a tab, and I didn't notice that it was autoloading videos in the background. My job doesn't care if I do some personal browsing during the day, but we have bandwidth limits... I was way, way, way over the limit. Lesson learned.

  35. Will leave users using Facebook app even less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot understand the logic in autoplaying videos when the application itself can detect whether it's using wireless network or on data.

    Obviously we don't want to be downloading a video that we're not interested in watching over data!! This is a simple thing out of respect that the developers should be considering. I will now use Facebook less when I'm on data in future, because of this.

  36. Burn All GIFs by tepples · · Score: 1

    browsers can't detect the difference between an animated GIF and non-animated until it starts downloading

    Other than that if it's not animated, there will likely be a Content-type: image/png HTTP header. Almost nobody uses still GIF anymore. Those not convinced to switch to PNG a decade ago by Unisys's assertion of its LZW patent were convinced by PNG's smaller file sizes on the vast majority of images and practical high-color support.

    1. Re:Burn All GIFs by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Almost nobody uses still GIF anymore.

      Habit is a strong force. And programs still list it higher on the default outputs list. The space savings isn't always that great without using a tool like pngcrush, which is just a lot of extra work that nobody really bothers with.

  37. Wi-Fi with metered uplink by tepples · · Score: 1

    But the mobile app will still autoplay if it detects it's on wifi instead of cell data network.

    Which would hurt the owner of a Wi-Fi AP with a satellite or cellular uplink. Or does the Facebook respect the operating system's provision to mark an SSID as being metered? (In Android 4.4 "KitKat", it's Settings > Data usage > overflow > Mobile hotspots. There's also a feature for this in Windows 8.)

  38. SETTINGS IS YOUR FRIEND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know you could just, i dont know... turn it off on the facebook app settings...
    or switch it to WIFI only mode..

  39. No need for Social Fixer... at least not for this. by mkruse · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out, no need for a browser extension to handle this because it's a simple setting. As the developer of Social Fixer, I did post info to users about how to turn this off months ago: https://www.facebook.com/socialfixer/photos/a.382610684341.167165.174424289341/10152145424839342/

    Unfortunately, the setting doesn't persist across devices/apps. So setting it on the web won't help mobile anyway. Supposedly auto-play videos were only ever supposed to auto-play if the user was on wi-fi, but I don't think that's actually how it works.

    Most of Facebook's decisions and actions are remarkably anti-user. As in, not in the users' best interests, but in the interests of the advertisers, publishers, share holders, and people with the last name Zuckerberg. I often wonder why we all continue to fund this site through content and ad views. It seems like an abusive relationship, but we just won't leave!

    [ ps, thanks for the direct link to the Social Fixer site! It won't help with this specific issue, but it will help with many others. :) ]

  40. Re:Yet more addons that fix hipster design fuckups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why shouldn't I wish death on myself and others over curves in my browser?"

    IT'S A FUCKING BROWSER, THAT IS WHY.

  41. Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Android does the same thing. I don't see you guys crying about that on every Android article.

  42. Re:Yet more addons that fix hipster design fuckups by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ...These days, though, more and more of the addons I'm installing aren't to add useful functionality to Firefox, but just to fix really fucking stupid design decisions made by hipsters. The UI of Firefox, starting with Firefox 4, has continually gotten worse and worse. Now I have to install a handful of addons to undo these idiotic UI changes. It got even worse when Australis was forced upon us....

    In my experience, the QA process for those add-ons is not nearly as good as the QA process for the FireFox browser. As a result, the functionality reclaimed by using those add-ons is usually problematic, at best.

    The bug-fest called Classic Browser theme, or something like that, which reinstates the functional UI that Australis removed, is what convinced me to leave Firefox in the dust and start using Pale Moon as my browser of choice.

  43. So who made money off this glitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My daughter went over her 2GB limit for the first time ever, and AT&T automatically charged her an extra $15 for another gig. If that happens to 10 million users, AT&T pulls in another $150million which pads the bottom line very nicely as we approach the end of the 3rd quarter. At the same time, Facebook's servers used up a bit more bandwidth which may have cost them some money, but let's imagine that Facebook charges it's advertisers as a fixed percentage of the total bandwidth. I don't know that it actually works that way, but anyone who works in a big corporation will tell you there are frequently twisted metrics like this, so it's not impossible they somehow made money.

    Which leads me to the idea it may not have been an unintentional glitch. Conspiracy theorists unite!