New issue
Advanced search Search tips

Issue 843427 link

Starred by 20 users

Issue metadata

Status: Untriaged
Owner: ----
Cc:
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: Linux , Windows , Mac
Pri: 3
Type: Feature



Sign in to add a comment

Reconsider autoplay whitelist design

Project Member Reported by gman@chromium.org, May 16 2018

Issue description

It seems to me the new whitelist design for autoplay is very much against the spirit of Net Neutrality and I'm hoping we can discuss it and consider changing the design.

Net Neutrality is about ISPs but boiled down the concept is that the infrastructure of the internet should not favor certain companies over others. That infrastructure arguably includes browsers.

So, if I understand correctly, autoplay in Chrome works using a whitelist. That whitelist is pre-populated with blessed websites. Those websites have basically been chosen to be "winners".

Consider youtubecompetitor.com. People go and it doesn't autoplay videos. How can it compete with youtube.com that has been chosen? The current response is that chrome will learn the user's preference but that's not fair, chrome didn't have to learn the user's preference for youtube. Why does youtube get a chosen but not youtubecompetitor? 

The current design says youtubecompetitor will get whitelisted for a particular user if they visit it enough but that still puts youtubecompetitor at a huge disadvantage. If user is not logged in it will not autoplay. If user uses incognito mode no whitelist for that site. If user uses a friends computer or a public computer no whitelist for that site. As the user switches profiles (work machine vs home, work profile vs home profile) that whitelist won't follow.

In otherwords it might be impossible for youtubecompetitor to ever get to a level playingfield with youtube because it has to get to the point that it gets on the pre-populated whitelist but the fact that it's not already on that list means it may never get there.

It really feels like the wrong design, at least when judged by the principles of fairness.

Why not just ask the user? This site would like to autoplay video yes/no? For youtube, facebook, vimeo, etc. most users will click yes once and be done. For a few other sites they'll click no and never be bothered again?

I certainly see issues with that. Ad site makes random domains so keeps asking until it gets a yes. I also see how it's similar to how every site asks for permission to notify which is annoying.

Still, something about the current design feels very unfair and very much against the principles of net neutrality. I know google is not chromium but Google claims to be for these principles

https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/net-neutrality/

You can easily consider being pre-whitelisted as being in the fast lane and not being pre-whitelisted as being in the slow lane.

Can this autoplay whitelist policy be discussed?
 

Comment 1 Deleted

Status: WontFix (was: Unconfirmed)
We are not using a whitelist. Media Engagement Index is a metric built on each user's device that helps Chrome decides whether a website should be allowed to autoplay on page load. We then gather global behaviour across all Chrome instances that allow sharing of statistics and we mark the websites that are matching some criteria based on numbers we got as pre-allowed to autoplay as they are the most likely to be autoplayed later. These websites will only be allowed to autoplay while the user didn't build enough data locally to let Chrome make a device-specific decision.
#0 +1
#2 -1

Is not it a whitelist that we refer to the global list of MEI?

I do not know the algorithm of the engagement index, but will not accept to the public, but will sites accepted by just a few people will not keep the engagement index low all the time?

Only sites accepted by the public will be able to play automatically, and sites that can only be accepted by some people will not be able to automatically play automatically.

Also, can MEI be personal information?
(Machine learning is an amateur, so it may be said that it is out of now.) Now we can judge various things by machine learning. Is not it possible to identify individuals from MEI data?

I think that I should listen to opinions of various people,
Why did you change to status wontfix soon?

Comment 4 Deleted

Comment 5 by okaybe...@gmail.com, May 16 2018

Whether it's a whitelist or not, gman raises several valid points highlighting why the use of a MEI violates the spirit of net neutrality.

Comment 6 Deleted

It's a whitelist. It's an algorithmically propagated whitelist designed to favor sites that already have high media engagement.

> We then gather global behaviour across all Chrome instances that allow sharing of statistics and we mark the websites that are matching some criteria based on numbers we got as pre-allowed to autoplay as they are the most likely to be autoplayed later.

This is systemically designed to give priority to sites that are already popular - read, sites like Youtube, CNET, etc... which is certainly a violation of the principles of net neutrality. The end result is that popular sites will effectively have access to more powerful APIs than startups.

That you customize this list after the user has installed a browser doesn't fix the problem. A user that is biased towards sites like Youtube from their first installation of Chrome is unlikely to switch to a competing site. This means that a competitor will never have a *chance* to have their MEI updated for that user.

The first visit to a site is crucial. This is why we spend so much time optimizing page load times and thinking about first time visitors. By starting the user off with a global whitelist, Google effectively gives their sites a running lead of every other competitor on the market.

The fact that MEI is entirely algorithmically determined and that it uses such a high threshold of engagement to take effect further underscores this bias. MEI's threshold of engagement is just high enough for someone visiting a third party site to get frustrated with the lack of autoplay and then switch back to something else. The fact that the feature is entirely hidden to the end user guarantees that a user will assume lack of autoplaying videos is a deficiency of the site itself, and not a browser setting.

Google of all companies should understand that algorithms aren't inherently neutral.
So gathering stats across multiple times until you decide that using website A is cool, is a better strategy then having a true/false setting in chrome that the use is prompt to allow or not like we currently have when we request a webcam feed?

Going to cnn.com to read the news doesn’t mean I want cnn.com to allow auto play. Clicking on a link on cnn.com doesn’t mean I allow the website to use auto play for video and audio and currently this is what you guys are proposing. If the developer chooses to add a auto audio/video to all anchor links then u didn’t resolve the problem

Comment 9 by gman@chromium.org, May 18 2018

Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature
Status: Unconfirmed (was: WontFix)
You are using a whitelist. Or at least it says so in your press release

https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/improving-autoplay-chrome/

"Chrome allows autoplay for over 1,000 sites where we see that the highest percentage of visitors play media with sound."

That's a whitelist

Labels: Needs-Milestone
Cc: rbasuvula@chromium.org
Labels: M-68 OS-Linux OS-Mac OS-Windows
Status: Untriaged (was: Unconfirmed)
Considering this as a feature request and making the status to Untriaged so that the issue would get addressed.

Thank you!

Comment 12 Deleted

Sign in to add a comment