Misleading title. After reading the linked Gitlab discussion it’s more likely a backend change from Google side. Aurora does use burner account but early reports seem to suggest they are not flagged or rate limited.
Google actively blocking Aurora Store would be much worse than them simply changing their backend. The latter can likely be quickly resolved while the former might lead to a cat and mouse game, where it gets increasingly difficult for Aurora Store to continue to work.
The thing is, it’s already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn’t read that myself but maybe try doing that if you’re curious. 😉🫶
The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don’t know why it happened, or what it means.
Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is “why was it changed”? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who’s to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab.
Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It’s true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading.
The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you’ll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block.
We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point.
Misleading title. After reading the linked Gitlab discussion it’s more likely a backend change from Google side. Aurora does use burner account but early reports seem to suggest they are not flagged or rate limited.
How is it misleading?
Google actively blocking Aurora Store would be much worse than them simply changing their backend. The latter can likely be quickly resolved while the former might lead to a cat and mouse game, where it gets increasingly difficult for Aurora Store to continue to work.
And what makes you think it’s the latter and not the former?
Is this sealioning? 🫴🦋
LOL yes, anyone asking you questions you can’t answer about the shit you’re saying is “sealioning”.
The thing is, it’s already been answered. The conclusion was made based on reading the gitlab discussion. 🤷♂️ I didn’t read that myself but maybe try doing that if you’re curious. 😉🫶
The thing is, the conclusion is not going to be in any discussion outside of a Google internal chat or meeting. We know what happened, we don’t know why it happened, or what it means.
Maybe a gorilla in the woods found a Google employees laptop and implemented the change. We will never know unless we go into the jungle.
The thing is, you asked what made them think that, and I told you it was already answered. 👍🦋
But I guess you were asking a rhetorical question all along? 🙂
The linked gitlab discussion suggests it. There’s intermittent successes, and the particular errors align with a backend change.
Yes. once again, we know there was a backend change. The question is “why was it changed”? We already know Google manipulates YouTube for the explicit purpose of breaking Firefox, adblockers and yt-dlp. Who’s to say this is different? Certainly not anyone on GitLab.
Ah, I think I understand you a bit better. It’s true that the reason for the change is unclear, and it definitely could be malicious. However, that lack of clarity is what makes the OP article title misleading.
The article title claims the certainty that Google has blocked the Aurora store outright. I think you’ll agree that frequent errors with some successes is not the same as an intentional, simple block.
We may find that, yes, Google is intentionally blocking Aurora. It is just misleading to say so at this point.