Firefox To Block Auto-Playing Audio Starting March 2019 (zdnet.com) 85
An anonymous reader writes: Starting with Firefox 66 -- scheduled for release on March 19, 2019 -- Mozilla plans to block auto-playing audio on both desktop and mobile -- a feature it began to test on Nightly builds last year. The new rule will apply to any website that plays audio without user interaction in advance -- such as a user clicking a button. The audio autoplay ban will apply to both HTML5 audio and video elements used for media playback in modern browsers, meaning Firefox will block sound coming from both ads and video players, the most common sources of such abuse. Mozilla's move comes almost a year after Chrome took a similar decision to block all auto-playing sound by default with the release of Chrome 66 in April 2018. Microsoft similarly announced plans to block auto-playing sounds in Edge, but the feature never made it to production.
Re: (Score:1)
and you kiss your mom with that mouth?
Re: (Score:2)
Audio on PC's have always been problematic. At least on my old Amstrad 1512 it had a volume on the PC Speaker. But in general now with multi-tasking apps. I wish I could really control how audio works on them. Mute this App, Allow App to play if focused, Allow App to play on background.
Almost how nVidia does this on Windows you can tell which app to use the more advanced card. Allow for performance Apps to run fast, and others to run slower, because that was good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
---
Re: (Score:2)
But you can not control which App is playing and when. The Volume control on the Amstrad was fine, because it was an DOS based 8086 CPU with 512k of RAM, it will only run one app at once.
However we now have many apps running at once, and they call could be making noises. So the volume control is less useful. Because some noises we want to keep and others we want to toss.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the built-in audio mixer in Win10 lets you control volume per app.
Video (Score:5, Informative)
What about video? That is just as bad, if not worse. An how about blocking the ability for a video to self extract its ass from a frame and chase my ass down the page.
Re: Video (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No, AC is correct; those work. I set a few other things though as well:
media.autoplay.ask-permission: true
media.autoplay.block-webaudio: true
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed: true
Re: (Score:3)
There's actually a setting to block that in the current release of Firefox
https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org]
It just stopped working properly a few releases ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I run with noscript and I block all of the ad networks. I can't remember the last time I saw an autoplaying video. I didn't even know that feature existed or was broken.
Blocking silent video is a hard problem (Score:4, Informative)
Blocking automatic playback of audio will block automatic playback of video with audio. Blocking automatic playback of silent video is a much harder problem. Just blocking MP4, WebM, and GIF animations is not enough, as a site can provide fallbacks that use script or even pure CSS. Some Slashdot users claim to have used extensions to block video, but none of them seem to block all methods in my test suite [pineight.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you might not consider GIF or motion JPEG to be video, an ad network might. If an ad serving script detects that the browser is blocking MPEG-4 or WebM playback, it could seamlessly fall back to GIF or motion JPEG.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think most people here would consider gifs or swapping images as video.
You're right. Most people here would consider it far worse as it is a video consuming far more bandwidth and resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Do many sites actually use the hard to block techniques in your test suite though? I note that the smallest one is 2.5x larger than the basic MP4 video file version, and that ratio increases exponentially with the length of the video. Seems like a lot of effort and bandwidth just to play back something that they know the user doesn't want to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Do many sites actually use the hard to block techniques in your test suite though?
I'm not aware that they do. But if use of video blocking functionality in browsers or browser extensions becomes more common, I imagine that they are likely to.
Seems like a lot of effort and bandwidth just to play back something that they know the user doesn't want to see.
The ad server uses cheap wired bandwidth, and its operator doesn't care that viewers are behind a more expensive cellular connection. Its operator cares only about impressions and how well those impressions are matched to interests inferred from surveiling each viewer's browsing history. Besides, the pure CSS JPEG filmstrip is 0.59 MB, or less than o
Would you subscribe to block ads? (Score:2)
Video ads are the only way that a lot of sites can keep from going behind a paywall.
Re:Would you subscribe to block ads? (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Video ads are the only way that a lot of sites can keep from going behind a paywall."
As long as the user can choose to play them or not. Autoplay is usually a hostile assault on the user.
"Play Videos and Continue Reading" button (Score:2)
Video ads are the only way that a lot of sites can keep from going behind a paywall.
As long as the user can choose to play them or not.
Consider a website that displays the headline and the first sentence, and the rest of the article loads once the user has made a gesture to activate a button labeled "Play Videos and Continue Reading". Would you accept a flow like that?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Would you accept a flow like that?"
Maybe. Generally, I find video/audio/animated ads unacceptable and would rather see fixed ads with click for more info.
Re: (Score:3)
Video ads is the way ensuring that I'll never visit the site again.
Re: (Score:2)
Then enjoy doing without your favorite webcomic as one webcomic host after another introduces video ads. Explosm.net, home of Cyanide & Happiness, already has them.
Re: (Score:1)
And nothing of value was lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is the first site I know of that ran Flash ads, namely for Splunk services. Yet people still visit Slashdot.
Re:Video (Score:5, Informative)
>" What about video? That is just as bad, if not worse."
You can already do this in Firefox (blocking autoplay of ALL regular video, regardless of muted or not). And you can do it in many versions, including the current. But it requires a setting in about:config (Firefox is the only browser I know of so far that allows blocking autoplay of muted video, and no addon/plugin is needed):
media.autoplay.default=1
media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed=false
media.autoplay.allow-muted=false
Although it will break some sites (I find in practice it is a rare thing, though). The Firefox UI currently includes no way to set the first two of the above, you must use about:config.
Yes, there are some nasty ways around this that some bad sites could still use. To improve further, make sure to block the playing of animated GIF/PNG/WEBP, too (note there is no per-use control for this, unfortunately):
image.animation_mode;once (if you want to play it once only, no looping) or
image.animation_mode;none (never play it at all)
Re: (Score:2)
An how about blocking the ability for a video to self extract its ass from a frame and chase my ass down the page.
Doing so would break the layout system used by an incredible amount of the internet. So no. #wontfix
What about those Windows repair scams? (Score:1)
You mean we aren't going to be able to hear the "Your computer has many virus on it. Call Windows Support immediately at 800-555-1212 or we will be forced to deactivate your Microsoft"? What a shame!
Re: (Score:1)
I know... I was pulling my hair out for hours until I realized I'm not running anything Microsoft.
Shew, what a relief!
Re: (Score:3)
Disabling autoplay has been in about:config for years now
Setting media.autoplay.default to 1 and media.autoplay.allow-muted to false in Firefox 65.0 did not block pure CSS motion JPEG [pineight.com] or pure CSS motion PNG [teamtreehouse.com].
Re: (Score:2)
For The Love of God, Video Next! (Score:4)
Autoplay *anything* has to be stopped.
Re: (Score:3)
"especially full-page background videos, or smoke/effects as a top layer.". So I can send you my internet bill (bandwidth)? Yes we need an easy way to disable ALL audio/video if we want because it's MY bandwidth. MY computer. I will decide what I want to see and listen to. Not you. You need an example? Here is a site I don't have choice to use (my client use it for timesheets) : https://manitousolution.com/en... [manitousolution.com] Why on earth they have to use a stupid video in the background?! They waste my bandwidth, usele
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, it is on your computer via your network and infrastructure costs. Whilst it is on their computer it is theirs, but they send it to you and they should only send it to you via request and not attempt to force it's use via the nature of the software in use.
I run a mod on Waterfox https://www.waterfoxproject.or... [waterfoxproject.org] for this but it should be an end user choice, just like the position of the tab bar which put me right off firefox. The team have a horribly tendency to force their choices on end users.
FFS, people, do a little searchin'... (Score:2)
I have autoplay for video and audio turned off in Firefox, and ever since they went to "quantum", this stuff actually works.
1. In your address bar, put about:config.
2. In about:config search, autoplay
3. media.autoplay.default;1
4. media.autoplay.enabled;false
Enjoy your lack of autoplay, even in obnoxious sites like cnn and youtube. No extensions needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except those settings haven't worked since 63v because they decided to complicate autoplay configuration even further: https://support.mozilla.org/en [mozilla.org]... [mozilla.org],
What can I say.. no autoplay on any site I visit.
Block more ads (Score:2)
Hate Auto On Audio and Video! (Score:2)
Firefox blocked my audio several years ago (Score:3)
Thanks FireFox (Score:2)