Chrome users don't get Flash option on YouTube anymore
Google has removed the option to switch between Adobe Flash and the HMTL5 Video Player on YouTube for Chrome users.
You have two core options when it comes to playing videos on YouTube. You can use Adobe's Flash Player for that or YouTube's HTML5 video player.
Flash was the format of choice up until now regardless of browser used and the only exception to that was if Flash was not available or enabled on YouTube. If that is the case, YouTube tries to switch to the HTML5 player automatically which may or may not work depending on the browser's support for HTML5 Video.
If you wanted to use HTML5 by default, you can visit the http://www.youtube.com/html5 HTML5 Video Player page to activate it. When it started, it was called HMTL5 Beta but now it is just the HTML5 Video Player which suggests that it is out of beta.
So, that page displays whether you are using the HTML5 video player or not on YouTube.
Chrome users who have visited the page recently may have noticed that they cannot switch to Adobe's Flash Player anymore as there is no option to do so, and that HTML5 is selected by default.
The page opened in Chrome displays what the browser supports and lists that "the HTML5 player is currently used when possible".
What this means is that you cannot switch to the Adobe Flash player anymore if you are using Google Chrome. If you check the page in other browsers you will notice that you still get the switching option between HTML5 and Adobe Flash.
Why is Google doing that?
The most likely explanation is that it has something to do with the company's announcement that it will kill all NNAPI-based plugins in Chrome this year. Since Flash is one of those plugins, it is only natural that it won't be supported anymore on YouTube.
The wording makes it look like as if Flash may still be used at times, but that YouTube will prefer the HTML5 player whenever possible if you are using Chrome.
Is there a way around this?
I have not tested this, but it is likely that changing the browser's user agent may display the option again on the HTML5 Video Player page on YouTube.
You can use a browser extension such as User-Agent Switcher for Chrome to test that.
I guess Softonic is also getting money from Google.
Wait till Shaun discovers chrome://flags/ and then the real how-to chrome article flooding will start…
I don’t think so. The real summary. If you need to use Chrome use it in Incognito Mode because it keeps track of your browsing history. Use Edge for your normal browsing. Edge keeps track of your browsing history for saving puppies:) Typical tricks, badmouthing the main competitor.
Really Shaun your writing “The Dark Web Awaits!” is the dark mode the same as the dark web?
Maybe dark mode was a better title?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web
Or Brave shortcut with “-tor” parameter at the end.
The problem, is that I’m not sure which is less dangerous – Chrome or Tor?
Question marks after a declarative sentence is bad Grammer. See the headline. To use a question mark simply change the wording to a sentence, such as “How do you……”
@Shaun thanks for the articles!
“One of the best things about using Google Chrome is it keeps track of your browsing history.”
Considering the article topic I assume you mean browsing history in a broader sense, including things like tracking storage. Well even if that comment was restricted to browsing history only, not only it’s not Chrome specific but rather universal among browsers, but Chrome would instead be specific in making keeping history the worst possible feature among browsers. Because while most of the browsers (Chrome and Firefox for instance) misuse browsing history by exploiting it commercially for things like personalized advertising, so the more is kept the better for them, Chrome excels at it by uploading it unencrypted to Google servers often without the user even knowing.
“This mode disables local storage of site data, cookies, and browsing history.”
This is false. You are still being tracked by web sites (by local storage, cookies…) during your private browsing session, it just ends at the end of the session by a wiping of the tracking storage. Firefox has the same issue, and both by design. From:
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/7440301
“Cookies and site data are remembered while you’re browsing, but deleted when you exit Incognito mode.”
In fact, if it works like in Firefox, the tracking storage is even hidden to the user in the UI during private browsing but still here, creating the illusion that it is actually disabled, and even technical users often fall for this. The ability to limit, clean, auto-clean tracking storage, for instance with extensions, may also be limited in this mode. Personally I do not use it because it’s not private enough for this reason, giving up control on cookies ; I use normal mode with privacy tweaks.
A consequence is that browsers like Tor Browser that use mandatory permanent private browsing mode suffer from the same problem. In fact some update went further and totally removed the ability to block cookies and other tracking storage in the UI, while it’s still possible in Firefox in private browsing.
In private browsing modes a bit like in Tor Browser it seems that there is an underlying philosophy that it doesn’t matter that you every tiniest action is being scrutinized, analyzed, and used back against you by evil actors as long as there isn’t your real life name attached to the process. Personally, I disagree. This “loophole” is being heavily abused by surveillance capitalists in many other ways currently.
“One misconception people have is their data is kept private when using incognito mode. You should know that you can still be tracked and attacked by third parties. Your ISP (Internet Service Provider) can track your browsing history and block local websites according to your geography.”
I don’t think that the most common misconception about private browsing is that it would act like an antivirus and block attacks that target vulnerabilities.
What’s often misunderstood is rather that a lot of this mode aims at protecting from other users of the same computer, being a sort of “porn mode” for example. From the same Google reference:
“When you browse privately, other people who use the device won’t see your history.”
A typical example being the browsing history wipe, while such history is not accessible to web sites anyway, but could be to other local users. (well as discussed above it’s also accessible to browser companies while it shouldn’t be, and additionally for anti-user purposes, but that’s another issue). Or the cookies being stored in memory instead of on disk, which may address yet other privacy issues due to local attacks.
However it is also useful to partly limit web tracking (I would not call this “third party” as the author writes because this obviously also includes first party ie the browsed site) in addition to protecting from other local users, by wiping tracking storage at the end of the session. With the caveat above that during the session itself, tracking storage is not disabled. There are also typically other measures that are directed against tracking by web sites exclusively, that are enforced in private browsing mode.
And finally there is all the tracking by sites that happens without using the tracking storage itself, such as through fingerprinting or the IP address ; wiping storage at the end of the session won’t help with that, unless using Tor Browser.
Why use an incognito mode when you can use browsers with a pre-installed web proxy. The UtopiaP2P ecosystem browser is the best way for me to surf the web anonymously. If, like me, you value your anonymity and privacy, then I recommend using this browser.