360
Google just broke all third-party YT clients, including yt-dlp; a full JS implementation is now required. (github.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So, starting now, Google started mandating full JS for YT, effectively breaking all third-party clients and locking the site to their official client.

This reeks of DRM.

UPDATE: Installing Deno and installing yt-dlp through PyPi fixes yt-dlp but the very idea that Google is mandating JS to lock down YT in an attempt at pseudo-DRM is still crappy.

UPDATE #2: inv.nadeko.net is working again for now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 20 points 1 year ago (12 children)

You still have alternative platforms to Big Tech though, PeerTube and Odysee like have been mentioned umpteen times in this thread and on Lemmy at large, and not to mention Lemmy itself, and Mastodon, Pixelfed, and Bsky among others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Bsky is just another VC financed grift though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're probably right, but I'm not sure what the grift IS. Presumably they'll start rolling out ads at some point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They’re still running on VC money so it’ll be a while. My guess: ads, selling user data, AI training on user behaviours, limiting what content is suitable (getting rid of NSFW), promoting corporate brands (so algorithmic advertising) and adding crypto in one way or another. And all the other tricks that older platforms have been doing.

    And probably burying the thought of distributed protocol, hoping people will stop talking about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Sure but they don't have the content and don't have staying power. If peertube became popular who is going to pay for the bandwidth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Its users, in part because it uses web torrent which means the traffic of videos is shared peer-to-peer, thus the host doesn't have to pay for a lot of bandwidth.

    Also, just like mastodon servers are paid by its users for service I'm sure admins that build up a good reputation with their users or make them aware that they need more to pay for it will pay, or not and they'll just disappear which is really how the web should work, not all these tech oligarchs who have lots of money from exploiting their users and workers.

    Edit: Was incorrect, it uses HLS with P2P support:

    At the beginning of PeerTube, we only supported Web Video (previously known as "WebTorrent") streaming. Due to several limitations of the Web Video system, we had to add HLS with P2P support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm not an expert on these things but I just don't like the idea of web torrent.

    I do however, whole heartedly agree that video producers should pay for their own bandwidth, and be supported by users.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not an expert on these things but I just don't like the idea of web torrent.

    How come?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    IDK really.

    I don't dislike it in a "this is terrible technology and no one should be doing it" kind of a way. Just in a "I feel a bit icky about this" kind of way.

    There must be privacy considerations right? Do I really want everyone to know what videos I'm watching?

    Also, do I really want my client to be providing n upstream connections grinding away at my battery?

    They've probably long since solved this I guess but in the early days firefox wasn't supported ?

    I just... don't feel like this is the solution to the cost of delivering content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I was incorrect, it uses HLS with P2P support:

    At the beginning of PeerTube, we only supported Web Video (previously known as "WebTorrent") streaming. Due to several limitations of the Web Video system, we had to add HLS with P2P support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I thought PeerTube ditched WebTorrent and switched full-time to WebRTC a while back.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Seems you are correct, I thought webtorent was the only way to have peer-to-peer video, but seems not:

    At the beginning of PeerTube, we only supported Web Video (previously known as "WebTorrent") streaming. Due to several limitations of the Web Video system, we had to add HLS with P2P support.

    That's pretty cool, thanks for the information!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent