[HN Gopher] Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due t...
___________________________________________________________________
Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take
down request
Author : the-scrabi
Score : 611 points
Date : 2023-07-11 15:38 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (newpipe.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (newpipe.net)
| kristopolous wrote:
| I'm beginning to notice that Google seems to be favoring Google
| products in search quite a bit.
|
| It's kinda the Microsoft 1999 vibe
| can16358p wrote:
| We need a decentralized, uncensorable search engine.
|
| Imagine everything that big players want to censor, being
| available to everyone.
| IX-103 wrote:
| So child porn and snuff films for everyone? No thanks.
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| Presumably, any search engine that works passably well will
| not show you snuff films if you type in a search for
| something entirely different. The only people who see snuff
| films will be the ones looking for them.
|
| Child porn shouldn't be on the internet because it is
| illegal, and if it's not on the internet, it won't come up in
| search. If it does come up in search, that makes it all the
| easier to report to the police.
| RunSet wrote:
| The "I'm feeling lucky" button gets replaced with one reading
| "Feel lucky, punk?"
| zenapollo wrote:
| Sounds like a good idea in theory, but when i do imagine it, it
| seems like it might be a dystopian nightmare of the worst parts
| of our nature.
|
| I think a better idea would be a regulatory environment for
| tech that - squeezed monopolies and oligopolies, mandated
| transparency, and mandated a minimal system of human-tended
| justice and appeals.
| phh wrote:
| There is chrome.google.com and www.facebook.com in the list.
| That's pretty cool.
|
| I'm not saying they are wrong, chrome definitely allows you to
| decode drm-encombered files, but uh...
| cge wrote:
| The Lumen Database page lists only domain names of the URLs in
| the complaint unless you solve a captcha and enter an email
| address. The full complaint lists https://newpipe.net/ itself,
| while the chrome.google.com (and addons.mozilla.org, and
| store.microsoft.com...) URLs are to browser extension pages,
| and the Facebook URL is the URL of a post that has a link to a
| Youtube downloader.
|
| The list generally seems to be a collection of things that
| range from the websites of Youtube downloaders and interfaces
| to simply mentions of them, including a Wikipedia page about
| Youtube downloaders and a Trustpilot page of reviews about a
| website for one.
|
| Item 9, meanwhile, appears to be a completely unrelated
| Soundcloud track that isn't even connected to the complaint
| description, but appears to have the URL of a Youtube
| downloader in the title.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| It's likely to be a link to an extension on the Chrome web
| store and perhaps a similar download link on Facebook.
| the-scrabi wrote:
| Google accepted a DMCA request for the homepage of the Android
| streaming app NewPipe. Its homepage newpipe.net has been removed
| from Google search results if one searches for "newpipe". NewPipe
| is an alternative privacy focused YouTube frontend, but also
| supports other services like PeerTube, SoundCloud and Bandcamp.
| atherton33 wrote:
| The way the DMCA works, to my understanding, Google has to
| accept the notice, unless NewPipe submits a counter notice,
| which can be done here:
|
| https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905
|
| Proceed as if reporting infringement, and the option will
| appear to specify this is a counter report.
|
| If the reporter chooses to continue, the next step is with the
| courts.
| skissane wrote:
| > Google has to accept the notice, unless NewPipe submits a
| counter notice,
|
| They don't _have_ to accept it-they can choose to ignore or
| reject it. However, if they choose to ignore /reject it, and
| the notifier then sues them, they may lose one of their legal
| defences.
|
| Obviously they decide that most of the time complying is the
| legally less risky path, so most of the time they comply.
| However, if they get a DMCA request for a famous website like
| nytimes.com, they probably won't action it.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I think they have a whitelist for things like Wikipedia.
| fweimer wrote:
| I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention devices.
| There is also no liability exemption for service providers.
| [deleted]
| wtallis wrote:
| > I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention
| devices.
|
| Right, because the DMCA takedown notice procedure as a
| whole doesn't apply to circumvention devices, only to
| content that is itself copyright infringement.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Exactly. The DRM circumvention parts of the DMCA specify
| a court order is needed to stop a circumvention device.
| dcow wrote:
| Why isn't this higher up? This seems like the actual meat
| of the discussion: Google is erroneously interpreting
| this takedown request as something it's supposed to
| comply with, when in fact it's not. Furthermore by
| misinterpreting requirements here Google is harming the
| public and newpipe. I wonder what newpipe's appeal (to
| Google) process looks like...
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| Putting on my conspiracy theory hat, but I've used the
| NewPipe android app for at least a couple years now and
| the experience has been so good I wondered why Google
| hadn't made more of an effort to quash it. Maybe this is
| a way for them to harm the project without looking
| anticompetitive or something.
| hknmtt wrote:
| this reminded me to install f-droid on my new phone :)
| world2vec wrote:
| Any good equivalent to Newpipe for iOS? I'm using Video Lite so I
| only get one ad when opening the app. I'd like to have
| SponsorBlock like some Newpipe versions have and no ads at all.
| r00t4ccess wrote:
| I just use the brave browser on ios it blocks ads ootb
| waxyalan wrote:
| Yattee is worth checking out https://github.com/yattee/yattee
| aeyes wrote:
| uYouPlus (sideloading required)
|
| Works without a jailbreak, you just have to refresh the app
| every 7 days but thats pretty much automated these days.
| fryman wrote:
| Safari extensions vinegar and sponsorblock. Youtube in safari
| is a little janky compared to the app, but that's the best I've
| found.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Vinegar is the best. It replaces hostile video players like
| the one on YouTube with native HTML5 <video> elements so
| everything works as expected (like picture-in-picture).
| isaacremuant wrote:
| Brave search works. Google is no longer a very reliable search
| engine, between the terrible spam, the insane censorship, the
| political biases and "regulations" such as this one.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| NewPipe is excellent. I was disappointed that it was not
| available for desktop until I discovered tartube which will
| download video files from almost any website easily
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| tartube is only available on Sourceforge. I thought that was a
| malware infested download site?
| MikusR wrote:
| That hasn't been true for years.
| erremerre wrote:
| Which clearly shows that a mistake can ruin reputation
| forever. Like sourceforge with the scam, or brave with the
| referees scandal.
| mowse_winded wrote:
| Invidious
|
| https://invidious.io/
| t0bia_s wrote:
| FreeTube
|
| https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube
| dark-star wrote:
| JDownloader, youtube-dl, yt-dlp and many others can also
| download YouTube videos (and hundreds of other sites). Yes, the
| last two are command line tools, but if you put them on your
| desktop you can just drag&drop any YouTube-link on them and it
| will download it for you
| RunSet wrote:
| Stacher is a decent frontend for yt-dlp for the command-line
| averse.
|
| https://stacher.io/
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I also recommend FreeTube, which sounds like a porn site but
| actually it's another open source desktop YouTube player:
| https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube
| mrmuagi wrote:
| Oh neat, looks like tartube is a GUI frontend for youtube-dl.
| tohnjitor wrote:
| It defaults to youtube-dlp but can be toggled back and forth
| with youtube-dl.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| What's the difference between the dlp and dl versions? I've
| only ever tried dl.
| skeletonjelly wrote:
| youtube-dl is unmaintained. yt-dlp is a maintained fork
| kim0 wrote:
| Praying they don't touch Brave browser! Most of my YouTube is
| thorough it these days.
| jraph wrote:
| Isn't this totally irrelevant? Do you really expect a DMCA
| takedown for a browser? So why mention it?
|
| I guess it's an IMoB (Irrelevant Mention of Brave)
| hunter2_ wrote:
| DMCA anti-circumvention provisions are regarding tools that
| circumvent effective access controls.
|
| I realize that broken encryption is considered an effective
| access control in this context despite it being broken, but apps
| like Newpipe aren't even breaking encryption, right?
|
| What aspect of the YouTube servers' behavior can be construed as
| an effective access control? Is there even a rudimentary secret,
| that never gets served to clients typically but that apps like
| Newpipe figured out?
|
| Unofficial cable TV descramblers are illegal despite simply
| reconstructing the missing sync signal, but that's because they
| facilitate theft of services that are normally paid. YouTube is
| free.
| Retr0id wrote:
| For better or for worse, something being "free" doesn't change
| anything regarding copyright or access control.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Access to YouTube videos is only "authorized" through YouTube's
| site and official apps (or yada yada), and YouTube videos are
| copyrighted material. YouTube has technological measures to
| ensure that you only watch YouTube videos that way. If you
| circumvent those technology measures, that's prima facie a DMCA
| violation, no?
|
| The definition of circumvention of a technology measure is
| extremely broad including "to avoid, bypass, remove,
| deactivate, or impair a technological measure".
|
| I'm pretty much of the opinion that the DMCA is a piece of crap
| as a law, but it doesn't lack for breadth and generality in
| those definitions.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| DMCA 1201 isn't just a crap law. It's completely unworkable,
| as has been known since before it was passed.
|
| Suppose Bob is in the business of duplicating public domain
| US government works. He downloads videos from the NASA
| website, presses them onto DVDs and sells them on eBay. He
| can do this without anybody's permission because DVDs are
| from the mid-90s and the patents are expired. He uses the
| same DVD format as Hollywood so people can watch them on
| their existing DVD players, but he also makes a free DVD
| player app for Linux so people can watch his DVDs or rip them
| or do whatever they want because they're in the public
| domain. It can also do the same with any other DVDs, because
| it's the exact same format. Is Bob breaking the law?
|
| Now suppose Bob is a jerk who is doing this with public
| domain works without providing anyone a way to exercise their
| right to copy them, or doing it to enforce contractually
| unlawful license terms or something like that. Is someone who
| makes a tool to thwart Bob breaking the law? If so the law
| could have (more) First Amendment problems, to say nothing of
| the obvious unreasonableness. But if not then it's a
| worthless law because anyone could use that as a
| justification to break anything. Which it is regardless
| because it has never been effective at suppressing the
| availability circumvention tools, only at should-be-
| impermissible abuses like prohibiting interoperability to
| prop up existing monopolies.
|
| It's also notable that NASA publishes many videos on YouTube.
| As in, only on YouTube.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| DVD supports both encrypted and unencrypted video, so Bob
| is only breaking the law if he's releasing a decryption
| tool. The entire DeCSS case hinged on video decryption
| specifically, everything else was already implemented by
| other parties.
|
| Now, if Bob decides to encrypt those DVDs, then you have an
| interesting legal area where half the law applies and the
| other half doesn't. DMCA 1201 only applies to things that
| protect _copyrighted_ works[0], not just any kind of access
| control measure. And it comes in two parts: one that makes
| it illegal to break encryption, and another that makes it
| illegal to provide tools to break encryption. So if you put
| uncopyrightables behind DVD CSS 's encryption algorithm,
| you can't sue someone for decrypting that particular DVD.
| But if you distribute a DVD decryption tool, then you're
| harming the protection of copyrighted DVDs, so you can't
| distribute a decryption tool even though some jackass might
| try to functionally recopyright public domain material with
| DVD CSS.
|
| More interesting than the NASA case would be Kevin MacLeod.
| He releases Creative Commons music under a CC-BY license,
| and that license has a clause specifically prohibiting the
| distribution of Creative commons material with DRM on it. A
| _lot_ of YouTubers use his music, probably didn 't know
| about this clause, and _definitely_ didn 't know that the
| music industry would rugpull everyone by claiming that
| dynamic download URLs are a DMCA 1201 technical protection.
| So if these music industry cases succeed, it also means
| that a _lot_ of YouTubers are open to some copyleft
| trolling on Kevin 's part. I doubt he'd actually do that,
| but it's still shitty that this is possible.
|
| [0] See Chamberlain Group v. Skyline Technologies; https://
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._Sky...
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > But if you distribute a DVD decryption tool, then
| you're harming the protection of copyrighted DVDs, so you
| can't distribute a decryption tool even though some
| jackass might try to functionally recopyright public
| domain material with DVD CSS.
|
| I don't think you're appreciating how crazy that is.
|
| Suppose some implements a DRM system that works like
| this. They have a server that speaks ordinary HTTPS and
| has a standard HTML page that serves content _to anyone_
| , but their proprietary client will filter the page on
| the client side and only show content after a user signs
| in and buys a license. The content is encrypted with
| ordinary TLS. If you visit the page using a standard
| browser instead of the vendor's proprietary client, it
| doesn't know anything about the filtering system but does
| implement the "encryption" (i.e. TLS/HTTPS) so it will
| "bypass" the DRM. Are web browsers now illegal?
|
| Suppose someone implements a DRM system that works like
| this. The content comes unencrypted on a hard drive
| inside a computer that asks for a login. The computer is
| screwed shut with pentalobe screws. Are pentalobe
| screwdrivers now illegal? What if they sealed the
| computer with phillips screws?
|
| Suppose I got saddled with a contract with someone saying
| I would encrypt their content, but I'm lazy so instead of
| designing a DRM system I just copy the on-disk format of
| Bitlocker and use a key of all zeros for everything.
| Anyone with a copy of Windows can decrypt all the
| content. Do I get to sue Microsoft?
|
| Suppose a ransomware organization uses the same DRM
| system as a copyright holder. Illegal to provide anyone
| with tools to break the encryption?
|
| It's absurd.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| DMCA 1201 has a knowledge requirement, so in the first
| example, someone just viewing the website normally has no
| knowledge of the DRM and thus isn't circumventing
| anything. However, if they had known of the proprietary
| client beforehand and used a regular web browser to
| circumvent the DRM, then that would violate DMCA 1201's
| anti-circumvention provisions. However, keep in mind that
| anti-circumvention is the _sane_ half of the law where
| all the actual exceptions for fair use and all that live.
| And also the half of the law that 's significantly harder
| to enforce.
|
| The second half of the law is the anti-trafficking
| provision. This is a lot stricter because it has no fair
| use exception. However, the actual requirement for
| violating this law is that the tool has to either...
|
| - Be only capable of violating the DRM scheme
|
| - Have limited commercial purpose other than violating
| the DRM scheme
|
| - Be advertised as being capable of violating the DRM
| scheme
|
| Just selling a pentalobe screwdriver is not enough to
| trip the anti-trafficking part of DMCA 1201. Either your
| DRM system has to have special screws that _only that
| particular device uses_ [0], or you have to specifically
| sell it as a way to steal music. Pentalobe screwdrivers
| have all sorts of significant commercial uses other than
| just breaking this hypothetical DRM scheme.
|
| For the same reason, you misusing Bitlocker does not make
| Microsoft liable for violating DMCA 1201, because
| Bitlocker has a very wide commercial purpose outside of
| circumvention. However, if someone says "hey the key is
| all zeroes", _they_ are liable for trafficking in
| circumvention tools. Generally speaking, DRM needs to be
| narrowly tailored to avoid overlap with commonly-
| available and thus _legal_ circumvention tools. If you
| abuse existing functionality to make DRM in a way that is
| trivially circumvented then you gain very little from
| anti-circumvention. For the same reason, those little
| right-click blockers people used to put on their website
| don 't mean that Chrome DevTools is illegal[1].
|
| Your ransomware-by-FairPlay example is actually legally
| interesting. I could see it going all the way to SCOTUS.
| If I were a cybercriminal, I would absolutely do this
| just to see people hold off on releasing unlock tools.
| That being said, I don't think a judge would actually
| find a security vendor liable here. There's a very basic
| principle in law that illegal activity is afforded no
| protection by the law[2]. So I can't sue a drug dealer
| because he spiked my heroin with fentanyl, or sue a game
| developer for using my unauthorized fanart of their
| characters without permission[3]. The criminals who
| released the ransomware cannot sue the security vendor,
| the DRM system vendor would have to be baited into doing
| so. Furthermore, "decrypting shit that was encrypted
| without my knowledge or permission" would be a perfectly
| valid commercial purpose. So as long as the security
| vendor does not say "this tool decrypts DRM" it's
| probably fine for them to release this.
|
| [0] For various economic reasons in screw manufacturing,
| this is highly unlikely to ever exist.
|
| [1] I'm pretty sure just mentioning this is committing
| one of my three felonies for the day.
|
| [2] This does not mean that criminals have no protection
| under the law at all, of course. Someone who burgles your
| house and gets injured can still sue for damages, because
| it's illegal to set up traps to kill people.
|
| [3] Under US law, if an artistic work is a derivative of
| another artistic work, the derivative is afforded
| copyright protection if and only if it is licensed. If it
| is unlicensed you own nothing.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > For various economic reasons in screw manufacturing,
| this is highly unlikely to ever exist.
|
| Did pentalobe screws even exist before Apple started
| using them? They certainly didn't have a large installed
| base of manufacturing capacity.
|
| > Either your DRM system has to have special screws that
| _only that particular device uses_
|
| But isn't that the core of the issue? You have your
| special screws for your DRM system. Bob comes along and
| starts using them on his bicycles to try to force people
| to have them repaired at the dealer. Can Alice sell
| special screw drivers? If not, what happened to "that
| only that particular device uses"? If so, anyone can
| distribute circumvention tools as soon as a third party
| uses the same DRM system for something else.
|
| And do you see what I mean by First Amendment issues?
| We're having a policy discussion, the core of protected
| speech, and yet:
|
| > I'm pretty sure just mentioning this is committing one
| of my three felonies for the day.
|
| How do you have a discussion about the effectiveness of a
| censorship law if describing the facts of its application
| is illegal?
|
| Suppose the security vendor of the ransomware decryptor
| wants to make customers aware of its potentially
| precarious legal status, and then has to explain why.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Sure, but I'm trying to grok the essence of the technological
| measure being used by YouTube.
|
| I have to imagine that merely offering terms of service
| doesn't constitute a technological measure, and nor would
| merely slicing up the response in a DASH-like manner [0].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_
| ove...
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Well... here's the dumb thing. The DASH-like manner (or,
| "rolling cipher" as they like to call it) has currently
| held up as being an effective protection measure. It comes
| up all the time when RIAA in particular sues YouTube
| stream-rippers.
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/deciphering-youtubes-rolling-
| cypher...
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Off-topic: happy 10k, 1k!
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Very interesting. I feel like any type of digital storage
| or transmission format (PCM audio formats like CD Audio,
| packet switched networks like Internet Protocol, etc.)
| could also be described thusly, given that a typical
| human can't readily consume it. We use a tool that parses
| it using some algorithm, not a tool that avoids/breaks
| the algorithm. The error correction of a CD or the
| sequence number of a packet surely rolls way more rapidly
| than those DASH slices, too. Are those more common
| formats also considered effective access controls, since
| humans have severe difficulty interacting with them
| without the help of a tool?
|
| Granted, I suppose the difference there is that the
| creators of those formats/protocols did publish the spec,
| whereas YouTube didn't. Or did they, though? The
| JavaScript that YouTube serves _is the instruction for
| parsing the DASH response, available publicly,_ hardly
| different from publications like IEC 60908 ( "Red Book"
| CD-DA spec) or an RFC 791 (IP spec) -- a different
| language, is all.
|
| What a mess.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| The difference is also intent.
|
| YouTube implemented the rolling cypher to satisfy music
| industry demands that the files were not permanently
| downloadable (and it appears they were able to provide
| abundant evidence that Google has communicated that to
| them in court, I don't think this is a controversial
| point).
|
| That wasn't the point of the red book spec.
|
| Intent matters significantly, legally.
| yosito wrote:
| > YouTube is free
|
| I'd argue that even YouTube users who aren't paying for premium
| are paying too, just with their personal data instead of state
| currency. But it's still an exchange of value. Which IIRC, is
| the whole reason Newpipe exists, to circumvent that exchange of
| value.
| franga2000 wrote:
| It's not just data. Watching ads is paying, because it
| increases the viewers' cumulative likeliness to spend money
| with the brands whose ads they see.
|
| The way money leaves your wallet is through probability,
| spread out in time and with the viral ability to spread to
| others. Compared to a fixed subscription or one-time payment,
| this is a lot harder to notice or control, but it's money
| leaving your wallet nonetheless.
| bragr wrote:
| >What aspect of the YouTube servers' behavior can be construed
| as an effective access control? Is there even a rudimentary
| secret
|
| My understanding is that YouTube does implement a trivial sort
| of DRM/encoding with a rolling cypher to the actual location of
| video file. This is what tools like youtube-dl implement, and
| what get their DCMA from the RIAA. It's supposedly very light
| weight in terms of DRM, and notably I don't think Google has
| ever attempted to change it to break downloaders.
| justinclift wrote:
| > YouTube does implement a trivial sort of DRM/encoding
|
| Nope. Youtube break their streams up into a number of tiny
| pieces so they can adjust bandwidth dynamically extremely
| easily.
|
| It's just the RIAA and friends looking for an excuse, so
| they've attempted (and likely will continue attempting) to
| make people believe that's "sort form of DRM".
|
| Don't get fooled by their bullshit.
| dtech wrote:
| Iirc correctly the youtube-dl thing was about an additional
| layer of "protection" that was only used for music video's
| and the like
| rocqua wrote:
| As I understand the 'cipher' is in how you find the next
| tiny piece of stream. I haven't grasped fully how that
| works for Youtube but it is certainly more than 'increment
| a counter'. I believe it is something like 'read a variable
| in the previous packet and decode it'.
|
| If they wanted any semblance of an argument, decoding that
| variable should require a session key that is set on log-in
| or after a captcha. But I doubt they do that, it would be a
| horrible hassle to handle the session dependant encoding.
| RunSet wrote:
| Since an _effective_ access control would by definition not
| be subject to circumvention, there is no conceivable
| situation where someone might be guilty of circumventing an
| effective access control.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effective
|
| An _in_ effective access control? Perhaps, but the DMCA
| doesn't mention those.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Well, the thing YouTube does (whether you call it an
| access control or not) does actually have a measurable
| "effect" on people. It makes those people seek out third-
| party tools when they don't perceive any other reasonable
| way of downloading the work. So by that logic, it's
| pretty effective.
|
| Nothing is ever 100% effective -- even the best
| encryption is technically a compromise -- other than OTP.
| YouTube just happens to be on the low end of
| effectiveness; the third-party tools likely wouldn't
| exist if it were on the high end. But I guess even slight
| effectiveness is enough for DMCA purposes.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > I realize that broken encryption is considered an effective
| access control in this context despite it being broken, but
| apps like Newpipe aren't even breaking encryption, right?
|
| Encryption isn't the only access control. "Access control" is a
| pretty loose term. I think of it as being similar to what (in
| the US) counts as "breaking" in a breaking-and-entering charge:
| you've "broken into" a place if you had to move anything in
| order to enter. Even a door that is partially ajar and you had
| to slightly move it to slip by.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| I agree. But what is the thing being moved here, in technical
| (rather than legal) terms?
| JohnFen wrote:
| I don't know in this particular piece of software. I'm just
| saying that an "effective access control" can be something
| very trivial. It doesn't have to be anything as
| sophisticated as encryption.
|
| Just to speculate, it could be something like using the
| user's login credentials.
| FpUser wrote:
| Did a search and the link is right there.
| villgax wrote:
| Put your damn content behind a paywall then
| awinter-py wrote:
| incredibly useful product. pretty sure 'background play' is a
| paid feature on default droid youtube[1]. newpipe does it out of
| the box. I don't object to paying for youtube but I _do_ object
| to them linking my watch activity to my account. guessing youtube
| is constantly trying to kill this, just like ytdl, but for now
| amazing work keeping it up
|
| 1. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7437614
| floomk wrote:
| > guessing youtube is constantly trying to kill this, just like
| ytdl, but for now amazing work keeping it up
|
| their lawyers are, but the developers certainly aren't. the og
| youtube-dl hasn't released in 2 years and still works mostly
| fine.
| awinter-py wrote:
| ah I switched to yt-dlp, but forgot why
| 10g1k wrote:
| Google search results are never organic/natural. They are ordered
| by crazy crap ranks and money. And by Google policies like this.
| aembleton wrote:
| I think the DMCA is a US Government policy, not Googles
| proxygeek wrote:
| For what it's worth, Google results continue to show the F-droid,
| GitHub and all other links for NewPipe for me. May be, because
| I'm accessing it from outside USA
| proxygeek wrote:
| Never mind; just realised that they are blocking results to the
| NewPipe.net.
|
| It still shows up when searching for it directly though
| Zuiii wrote:
| I have a set of test questions I use to gauge how badly a LLM
| model has been lobotomized whenever a new one is released. This
| post made me finally realize that google search is really going
| away (compromise core mission due to invalid DMCA request?
| really??) and that I will have to start looking for new search
| engines.
|
| This of course means that I need a way to gauge prospective
| search engines. My first attempt:
|
| - Search for software like newpipe and dolphine emulator
|
| - Search for content that very strong people fought hard to bury
|
| - Search for public library sites like libgen, zstd, and scihub.
|
| - Search for popular torrent sites
|
| - Search for far-right content if search engine is US-based
| (suggestions please)
|
| - Search for far-left content if search engine is US-based
| (suggestions please)
|
| What else have I missed?
|
| Sidenote: It's been clear for a while now that unbiased google-
| grade search engines are going away. Each search engine has at
| least one topic where it would deliberately return garbage
| results. We need a meta search engine that automatically routes a
| search query to the least damaged search engine.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Use Brave Search. It's way better.
| d33 wrote:
| Is "zstd" a typo? Couldn't find any sources on it (unless we
| mean the compression standard), including Wikipedia.
| Zuiii wrote:
| Sorry, I always mix the two together. I meant zlibrary:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library
|
| Most search results on google give fake clones. The current
| urls in wikipedia seem to be accurate. Also, use the Tor
| version because it has far more books.
| [deleted]
| pallas_athena wrote:
| z-library? wild guess.
| Zuiii wrote:
| Thought up of a few more search engine tests:
|
| - Search for specific git hashes, model numbers, and other
| forms of UIDs
|
| - Search for known phone numbers
|
| - Search for Tiananmen Square and Winnie the Pooh
|
| - Search for the Armenian genocide
|
| - Search for Mein kampf, Der Judenstaat, and other symbols used
| by extremists
|
| Unfortunately, I have a fairly western-centric view of the
| world. I need the perspectives of others with different views
| to cover my blind spots. I don't care what values you hold, I
| just want a reliable search engine tool that doesn't hide
| information from me.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| >I just want a reliable search engine tool that doesn't hide
| information from me
|
| I don't think this is something that a ranked search
| algorithm can do while keeping everybody happy.
|
| As an example, let's search for "vaccines cause autism". If
| you put "vaccines cause autism" content on top, some people
| are going to get very angry and think you're "hiding
| information" -- you haven't shown all the content debunking
| the claim. But, if you put "vaccines don't cause autism"
| first, some people are going to get very angry and think
| you're "hiding information", because you're not listing the
| original sources of the claim.
|
| There are a million such examples with varying degree of
| controversy; you've listed some of them already, but others
| could be "penis enlargement pills", "best truck to buy 2023",
| "dakota access pipeline", "thai king opression".
|
| You can't make an algorithm to distinguish fact from fiction,
| what counts as "information" and what doesn't. You can, at
| most, rank by consensus or popularity, but what's "popular"
| (or "allowed by the government") isn't necessarily true (or
| false). And you must rank your results somehow, there's just
| too much content.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Search for far-right content if search engine is US-based
| (suggestions please)
|
| I use a similar litmus test. I search for the website for the
| Proud Boys. Google doesn't just censor it. They place obviously
| hand-curated results critical of the movement on the first
| page. Bing is the same. DuckDuckGo also fails the test. Kagi
| and Yandex both pass this test.
|
| Google fails almost every one of these tests.
| FireInsight wrote:
| Tried this with ISIS. Same results, Yandex doesn't shy away
| from gore materials and finding the supposed ISIS website is
| easy.
| varispeed wrote:
| Just because Yandex passes the test, doesn't mean the can be
| relied upon.
|
| Remember, because they are Russian, it is in their interest
| to show you content that US corporations censor, but they may
| be censoring the content that Russia wants to be censored or
| manipulate it for the benefit of Russian propaganda.
|
| What I am trying to say is that it is probably better to get
| information from many sources as every can be biased one way
| or another.
|
| edit: Just query yandex about WWII, you'll see links to
| conspiracy sites and sources whitewashing Soviet Union
| involvement in starting it.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| You are absolutely right. I'm certainly not claiming Yandex
| passes these tests either. They're clearly guilty of
| censoring content critical of Russia. So far only Kagi has
| passed all my tests.
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| Maybe the solution is something like a search engine
| aggregator? A website that sends your search to both DDG
| and Yandex and shows you the top 5 links from both,
| removing duplicates. That way if something is censored on
| Yandex or DDG but not both, you'll still see it. Something
| like that would be non-trivial to implement, but a lot
| easier than writing a new search engine.
| callalex wrote:
| Dogpile has been around since 1996. Now I feel like an
| old greybeard ;)
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| FWIW when I searched WWII on Yandex, the top 5 results I
| got were:
|
| 1. Wikipedia
|
| 2. Call of Duty: WWII official website
|
| 3. Britannica
|
| 4. The YouTube channel @WorldWarTwo
|
| 5. history.com
| varispeed wrote:
| While websites such as Wikipedia, Britannica, and
| history.com are trusted sources of information, they may
| not always provide a fully balanced perspective on
| historical events such as World War II. These sources,
| largely based in the West, can sometimes underrepresent
| or insufficiently emphasize the role of the Soviet
| Union's aggressive actions and atrocities in the lead-up
| to and during the war. Which is probably why they are so
| high on the list of results.
|
| On the first page you get a link to
| https://wwiifoundation.org/timeline-of-wwii/ that doesn't
| even mention that Soviet Union invaded Poland and other
| countries.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| > What I am trying to say is that it is probably better to
| get information from many sources as every can be biased
| one way or another.
|
| I guess it's back to dogpile for me...
|
| (if they still did the multiple search engine thing)
| heap_perms wrote:
| > Powered by Metasearch technology, Dogpile returns all
| the best results from leading search engines including
| Google and Yahoo!, so you find what you're looking for
| faster.
|
| According to their 'About' Page, they still do it right?
| callalex wrote:
| Please educate me: what makes the results "obviously hand-
| curated"?
|
| When I search on DuckDuckGo I get a list of Wikipedia entries
| for its prominent members, and a few recent articles
| involving its members. In this case it's their convictions
| related to Jan 6, but it seems like the articles showed up
| because they are recent in time, not because of some sinister
| plot.
|
| Edit: To be clear I am not trying to discount your
| experience, I fully accept that the results you are served
| for the same term could be completely different than mine.
| MichaelDickens wrote:
| Wow, I didn't realize even DDG was censoring this hard. I
| tried what you suggested and the results between DDG and
| Yandex aren't even close. This comment convinced me to switch
| to Yandex.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| As a test for far right, try to find the Daily Stormer site. It
| moves every few months or atleast a year. Currently at
| dailystormer.in
|
| Comes up on Yandex. Hidden by google
| jeroenhd wrote:
| All of this because they don't want you to download Guizmo - Dans
| ma ruche (https://ssyoutube.com/en691rT/)
|
| Not the first time they've spammed DMCA takedowns either:
| https://lumendatabase.org/faceted_search?sender_name=Because...
|
| In comically French fashion, their complaints also include the
| same message in French just in case someone in Mountain View is
| more fluent in French than in English. I wonder if this is just a
| bunch of amateurs hired by the French label or if they actually
| pay legal professionals to spam these.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Somebody drank too much Ballantine.
| fathyb wrote:
| Well that's just normal!
| donmcronald wrote:
| I'm pretty skeptical of stuff like that. To me, it looks like
| they proxy the download for you, but that doesn't make sense
| because there's no way they have the revenue to support that,
| right?
|
| How does it work? Can someone explain it to me?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| You take youtube-dl/yt-dlp, make a frontend for submitting
| URLs to it, and stick it in on a page absolutely teeming with
| ads. With enough ads and enough random people searching for
| "youtube MP3 downloader" you can cover the server expenses
| and probably make a few bucks per month in the process.
| nine_k wrote:
| > _someone in Mountain View is more fluent in French than in
| English_
|
| No, I think this is for a case of any dispute of terms and
| particular formulations. The French version, I suppose, is the
| authoritative original, and a judge or an arbitrator might call
| for a certified translator to make exact sense of the letter's
| demands.
| GordonFremen wrote:
| Right, but the DMCA is an American law. It's irrelevant in
| France.
| p-e-w wrote:
| The only countries where American law is irrelevant are
| Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
|
| Go anywhere else, and on closer examination you'll find
| that American law is in fact _very_ relevant, with local
| governments often bending over backwards to accommodate US
| legal provisions. Copyright, financial regulation, and
| international travel are some of the areas where this is
| usually apparent, but far from the only ones.
| [deleted]
| vasco wrote:
| Biggest army in the world, also the only reason most of
| europe has freedom today and not a german dictatorship is
| the US in WW2. This is something europeans forget when
| complaining about "outsized" US influence but then also
| don't invest in defense and keep being safe just by the
| grace of the US. This comes with a price.
|
| PS: I'm from europe
| floomk wrote:
| [flagged]
| Joeri wrote:
| Germany would have lost to Russia, they were already
| being beaten back when D-day happened. Europe would have
| become a communist dictatorship, not a german one.
| 0xBDB wrote:
| "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view,
| the president and the United States have done for victory
| in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in
| this war are the machines.... The United States is a
| country of machines. Without the machines we received
| through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." - Stalin
|
| https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-
| balanc...
| bombolo wrote:
| the red army didn't invade Berlin in your alternate
| universe?
|
| Also USA funded terrorism, mafia, in italy... not
| something to brag about.
| vasco wrote:
| How many military bases does Russia have in Germany and
| the rest of europe? How much control does Russia have on
| europe in terms of enforcing laws, extraditing citizens
| vs the US?
|
| Do you really not see the difference? I don't like the
| fact that the US has this presence or influence in
| europe, but it is factual. Why you think stating a fact
| is braging, I'm not sure.
| Jwarder wrote:
| > How many military bases does Russia have in Germany
|
| Not the direction you are aiming, but I find
| Kaliningrad/Konigsberg a fascinating example of soviet
| imperialism.
| bombolo wrote:
| Russia had the same until the collapse of USSR. Which has
| nothing to do with who had a bigger role in fighting the
| nazis.
| vasco wrote:
| Did I make any argument about who had a bigger role? I
| just made an argument that because of the US's role, and
| the fact that right now they have the biggest army,
| that's what allows them to have this influence in laws in
| europe. Other people started making comparisons with
| USSR.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| >also the _only reason_ most of europe has freedom today
| and not a german dictatorship is the US in WW2
|
| German soldiers killed on the Eastern Front before the
| final battles of 1945: 2,742,909.
|
| On the Western Front, the Balkans, Africa, Italy, and
| Northern Europe: 640,541.
|
| I'm no mathematician, but but it seems like it wouldn't
| have been possible without Russians killing over 75% of
| the German soldiers and then marching on Berlin. Could
| Europe have have handled the other 25% without the US?
| Maybe. Could the US have handled the other 75% without
| Russia? I am very skeptical.
| vasco wrote:
| Lets say I rephrase to:
|
| >also one of the reasons most of europe has freedom today
| and not a german dictatorship is the US in WW2
|
| How does that invalidate my argument? What is your
| alternative explanation for why the US has outsized
| impact on laws in europe today?
| 542354234235 wrote:
| First, you directly stated that the US involvement in
| WWII was the _only_ reason Europe has freedom and that
| "is something europeans forget", which is wrong and
| invalid.
|
| Second, while it is true that US power projection through
| the military is one of the ways it influences other
| countries, including in Europe, it isn't the only way.
| The US dollar is the most held reserve currency in the
| world and is the standard for exchange in almost every
| country, outside of Russia, China, etc., means that most
| international economic activity passes through US
| financial institutions. That gives the US a lot of
| influence, as it means you cannot stray too far afield of
| US legal norms without risking those trading abilities.
| When the US pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and
| reimposed sanctions, it was the only country doing it,
| but European trade with Iran also went to almost zero
| because it was impossible to do business without touching
| a US bank at some point.
|
| Third, the US bases and military presence in Europe was
| because of the cold war, not because of anything the US
| did in WWII. Since WWII wasn't fought in America, its
| logistics, manufacturing, etc. were intact, compared to
| the rubble that was Europe. NATO, basing agreements, the
| US outsized military spending, etc. were to counter the
| only other super power, the USSR, and prevent Europe from
| falling under the iron dome. It was also to prevent the
| intra-European military competitions and arms races that
| fueled interstate wars for the previous 1,000 years.
| calcifer wrote:
| > the only reason most of europe has freedom today and
| not a german dictatorship is the US in WW2
|
| That thought is the result of decades of successful US
| propaganda. The people who actually lived through WW2 in
| Europe thought different. This poll [1] asked: "In your
| opinion, which nation contributed the most to Hitler's
| defeat?"
|
| [1] https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-
| content/uploads/2014/11/sondage...
| bavell wrote:
| How many people were asked in each poll and were they all
| French? Genuinely curious.
| calcifer wrote:
| Yes, they were all French. 995 people aged 18 and over.
| The study is here [1].
|
| [1] https://www.ifop.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study...
| vasco wrote:
| So you agree that somehow the US has a stranglehold on
| Europe if they were able to make the continent believe
| what you say is a lie. Maybe you don't think it comes
| from WW2 or them having the biggest army, but then what
| is your explanation? Europe bends over just because?
|
| The USA has military bases all over Europe with people
| and missiles. That started with WW2. How would they not
| have huge influence on what we do? No european country
| has a random military base in Ohio or whatever.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > No european country has a random military base in Ohio
| or whatever.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_over
| sea... says that Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,
| Singapore (admittedly not European), and the United
| Kingdom all have military bases in the US.
| hmm37 wrote:
| Pretty sure training bases aren't the same as a normal
| "military" base, but rather to have their troops trained
| by US soldiers.
| calcifer wrote:
| > but then what is your explanation?
|
| Decades of Holywood propaganda and related American
| cultural exports. There is a reason the Pentagon gives
| free access to military equipment to Holywood studios,
| but only if the military is depicted positively / in a
| heroic manner.
| vasco wrote:
| You think Europe lets the US dictate policy and enforce
| extradition because of... Hollywood? And not because of
| the position the US has on the world stage by having the
| biggest army and the world currency? Because that's the
| argument I'm making.
| calcifer wrote:
| You keep moving goalposts. Your original statement which
| started this comment chain was that without the US,
| Europe would be a German dictatorship. That is
| categorically untrue and is not actually believed by
| those who survived WW2. I also explained why the
| _perception_ is changed, even though the facts haven 't.
| From there, you've launched into some unrelated tirade
| about American military size.
| palata wrote:
| Can you really not think of a single instance where US
| interventionism was not welcome?
| vasco wrote:
| Of course I can. I don't like US intervention. But I
| don't have to pretend there's not an obvious reason why
| they intervene and why europe "let's them".
| ekianjo wrote:
| Technically Russia has bled a lot more to defeat Germany
| than the US but I guess you guys see History thru Call of
| Duty bullshit propaganda
| bavell wrote:
| Technically only because Russia treats it's troops like
| disposable cannon fodder and early in the war was sending
| 2 soldiers for every rifle with the instructions for the
| second guy to pick up the rifle when the first guy dies.
| DropInIn wrote:
| Reciprocity is the term in play
| DropInIn wrote:
| Folks.... It's literally called a Reciprocity
| Agreement.... Most developed nations have them with each
| other... It's how we can make sure murderers and other
| criminals can't just run across borders to escape
| justice....
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Pretty much yeah. The US is quite strong at throwing its
| weight around its areas of influence to enforce laws
| favorable to their corporations, otherwise they put you
| on the naughty list (US Special 301 report) and you could
| start seeing trade restrictions come your way. It's how
| they managed to get RARBG taken down all they way in
| Bulgaria.
| katbyte wrote:
| Is that actually why RARBG was taken down? Because their
| notice did not mention that. The only reasons I've heard
| have been deaths, health issues/Covid, and the war in
| Ukraine
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Sure, but the truth is they had no choice but to shut
| down after their life was made ever increasingly harder
| running a torrent website in a country where authorities
| were passing stricter anti-piracy laws and started going
| harder after pirates, after the US and the big movie and
| games studios started putting pressure on Bulgaria. Same
| thing happened in Romania a couple of years earlier where
| the original domain of the Filelist torrent tracker was
| seized. Are you ok with loosing sleep over the risk of
| going to prison or going bankrupt fighting trillion
| dollar movie studios in court for your famous torrent
| tracker side-project?
|
| Check US Special 301 report, Romania and Bulgaria were on
| the US naughty list, and had travel warnings issued for
| them, despite being safer countries than the US and also
| important NATO members in the region, with the reason
| given in that report that US entertainment piracy is
| rampant in the region lol.
|
| The big US movie studios cand leverage the US gov
| influence to put pressure on other countries to crack
| down on piracy. That's how strong they are. I remember
| the good ol' days in Romania when piracy was absolutely
| rampant that you would see ads in the city about ordering
| CDs and DVDs with quality pirated content through the
| mail, then we joined NATO, then suddenly anti-piracy laws
| became way stricter. You gotta play by Uncle Sams's rules
| if you join his playpen.
| zirgs wrote:
| This is the problem with the so-called "multipolar
| world". There aren't any other democratic poles. So - if
| you're a dissident or a whistleblower and you're too
| high-profile - you have nowhwere to go.
|
| Snowden has to live in Russia, because pretty much all
| Western countries would put him on the first plane to the
| USA if he ever tried to enter.
|
| My country extradites even our own citizens to the USA.
| sealeck wrote:
| And then you get countries like France where they refuse
| to extradite probable child sex offenders.
| abwizz wrote:
| everybody is a "probable child sex offender", so there is
| no ground to extradite.
| anon____ wrote:
| I think he meant _convicted_ child rapists: https://en.wi
| kipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_ca....
| boondoggle16 wrote:
| so strange, that man isn't even french any more than
| harvey weinstein or jeffrey epstein
| soraminazuki wrote:
| Snowden was _stranded_ in Russia because his passport was
| revoked while he was headed towards South America.
| zirgs wrote:
| He got lucky. South America isn't safe for him either.
| Look what happened to Assange. The Ecuadorian government
| changed and they kicked him out of the embassy soon after
| that. He wasted all those years there for nothing.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Wasted x years not being in prison?
| zirgs wrote:
| He basically imprisoned himself for all of those years.
| And what's worse - those years won't be subtracted from
| whatever sentence he's going to get. I don't understand
| what his long-term plan was.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| If I had to choose between being stuck in an embassy and
| being in a US prison, I wouldn't think about it twice.
| zirgs wrote:
| Yeah, but without a proper exit plan - you're only
| delaying the inevitable. He has spent 7 years in the
| embassy and 4 years in an UK prison - and his trial
| hasn't even started yet. 11 years and counting - many
| murderers don't get that much.
| WeylandYutani wrote:
| Well yeah superpowers can do whatever they want.
|
| To be fair to the US they don't push you out of a window.
| You get your day in court (although it may take several
| decades- see Guantanamo bay).
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Kind of assuming the lawyer or whoever formulated the
| complaint spoke english... would make sense if there was a
| translation of a legal request, that the original and the
| translation be included. In case of errors if nothing else.
| floomk wrote:
| [flagged]
| hgsgm wrote:
| The client is French. Including a French copy of the message is
| entirely mundane.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The French invented the word chauvinism :) They take their
| language very seriously likewise. I work for a French company
| and even though the official language is English you're kind
| of a second rate citizen if you don't speak it. Or write last
| names in all caps or quotation marks like <<>> :) They just
| are that way :P
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Space before exclamation or question mark is basically 100%
| accurate indicator of Francophone writing.
| wging wrote:
| I don't think so. I've seen Indians do it too, though
| they may be more willing to drop it as they learn it's
| not done in the wider anglophone world.
| martin_a wrote:
| My father does that, but he's just bad with
| interpunction.
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| And if you ever work in any other countries, you would see
| the same in different language. Work in a Swiss company?
| Hope you enjoy German. At one stage, French people has to
| stop this self deprecating and think elsewhere is much
| better and only French does this or that. It is not.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I don't work in france though.
| musiciangames wrote:
| Not my experience in Swedish company. n=1. It's not just
| business. Initially I felt awkward in shops, asking
| directions, etc using English. People just drop into
| English seamlessly.
| bombolo wrote:
| And drop back to swedish without a care for the immigrant
| coworkerks :)
| sealeck wrote:
| Depends on the Swiss company - some speak French!
| palata wrote:
| And some speak Italian!
|
| Small note though: I highly doubt they speak German...
| that would rather be Swiss-German.
| Glawen wrote:
| So in Scotland they speak Scottish-English? Irish-english
| in Ireland? What's your proficiency in these languages ?
| ekianjo wrote:
| Just like Quebecois is not really French
| palata wrote:
| Hmm, I would still say that Quebecois is French, but with
| some (maybe many) local words. Swiss-German is really a
| dialect (actually multiple dialects).
| anakaine wrote:
| They need not be proficient to understand that Swiss
| German is distinctly different from German. Its
| reasonably common knowledge.
|
| Swiss German is based around Alemannic dialects rendering
| it often and frequently unintelligible to traditional
| German speakers.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_German
| Glawen wrote:
| It is a dialect, written form is German. It is like
| hearing French spoken in sub Saharan Africa, it is hard
| to grasp but eventually you get it
| lapinot wrote:
| > It is a dialect, written form is German.
|
| Both things are wrong. It's not a dialect in the sense
| that it is not the same language with special intonation,
| some new words and new idiomatic sentences. It has its
| own (much simpler) conjugation and declension scheme.
| Much closer in feel to a creole.
|
| Its written form is also not german. Good luck reading
| some of the zuri by mike comic strips as a german reader.
| palata wrote:
| > it is hard to grasp but eventually you get it
|
| If by "eventually you get it" you mean "after putting
| enough effort into learning it", then yes. But that's the
| same for every language.
|
| If you mean "you need a few hours to get used to it and
| then you understand almost everything", then... well...
| not at all.
| bombolo wrote:
| French and Sicilian are dialects of Latin. Do you think
| French people can travel to Sicily and start chatting?
| bombolo wrote:
| germans can't understand swiss german.
| Glawen wrote:
| Pretty much doubt it.
| bombolo wrote:
| Are you a german speaker who has ever been in
| switzerland?
| palata wrote:
| I don't know about Scottish-English and Irish-English, to
| be honest. Would an English native understand them?
|
| Germans don't understand Swiss-German, and Swiss-Germans
| don't consider German as their mother tongue. Whereas the
| French being spoken on the French part of Switzerland is
| slightly different from the French from France, but
| people still consider that French is their mother tongue.
|
| Not sure if that answers your question, or if you were
| just complaining about the fact that I made a difference
| between German and Swiss-German :-).
| walthamstow wrote:
| > Would an English native understand them?
|
| Depends where in Scotland and how much they've had to
| drink.
|
| On a serious note, words like ken, bairn, breekies,
| stramash are not that well understood by English people.
| But it's unlikely a Scot would use them when talking to
| an Englishman.
| palata wrote:
| Right. But is it then that a Scot would just not use some
| local words, but still speak in their language?
|
| That's different with Swiss-German. If a Swiss-German
| person talks to you in German, then they are not talking
| in their language.
| Glawen wrote:
| I learnt German in Germany, and I understand the Swiss.
| When you are waiting 4h to cross the gottard tunnel, you
| have plenty of time to listen to the radio. It is hard to
| understand just like any dialect when you are not used to
| it, but I would not call it a different language.
|
| It is very unlike a French hearing Italian even though it
| is the same Latin root and words look the same on paper,
| grammatically it is very different.
| palata wrote:
| > and I understand the Swiss
|
| Apparently not enough to learn that nobody in Switzerland
| would ever call that "the Swiss"? There is not even "one
| Swiss-German".
|
| > grammatically it is very different.
|
| In your 4h in the Gotthard tunnel, did you get to see how
| Swiss-German is written differently than German? Also the
| grammar is fairly different.
|
| But yeah those are dialects, nobody said they weren't. I
| just said "they don't speak German, but Swiss-German"
| (more as a "fun fact" than trying to be pedantic), and
| they would definitely correct you if you said it is the
| same. Whereas a Suisse Romand (the French speaking Swiss)
| will tell you that they speak French, just like a French-
| Canadian from Quebec.
| Glawen wrote:
| So much this, try in Germany, you will eventually get
| ghosted if you don't make the effort of learning German.
| erremerre wrote:
| Dont forget writing time with a h separator. We met at
| 15h45.
| palata wrote:
| > They take their language very seriously likewise. [...]
| second rate citizen if you don't speak it.
|
| Try to not speak English in a US company, I guess?
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I'm not based in France at all though!
| Kuinox wrote:
| > Or write last names in all caps or quotation marks like
| <<>> :)
|
| Things we don't do much anymore in France.
| JodieBenitez wrote:
| Only because most text editors suck.
| Glawen wrote:
| And half off the websites incorrectly treating e or e
| encoding, forcing you to omit these when writing your
| name.
|
| It is incredible how badly foreign languages are
| supported
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Oh really?? In our company it still happens a lot.
| Especially the all caps last names are standard. Even in
| many non french countries.
|
| The quotation chevrons I've seen only in some people's
| output indeed.
| Sunspark wrote:
| All caps started becoming more popular in English because
| a lot of people now have names where the first and last
| names are interchangeable and it was causing uncertainty.
| eloisius wrote:
| I wouldn't mind this becoming an international standard.
| Going back and forth between the west and Asia, no one is
| ever sure upon first look which is my given name and
| which is my surname because of it being written in a
| different order across different ID cards, registration
| forms, etc.
| qwery wrote:
| I suppose I wouldn't mind it either, so to speak. But I
| think you should just get assigned an ID number at birth.
| Ideally it would encode the place and time of your birth,
| parents' ID numbers and sibling count, what the weather
| was like when you were born and what was forecast, ...
| ehPReth wrote:
| no shouting everywhere please :(. maybe an underline?
| Glawen wrote:
| Caps are much easier to handle in database. All customers
| family names are stored in caps at my company (in
| France). It really avoids confusion when you call them
| Jenk wrote:
| > Dear ssyoutube.com User: As you may have heard, our industry
| has been under strenuous attacks by certain GB copyright
| holders. Because of these attacks, it has become financially
| impractical for ssyoutube.com to continue to provide services
| in the Great Britain. Accordingly, ssyoutube.com will be
| terminating its services in the Great Britain as of November 3,
| 2022. We thank you for your past loyalty and patronage and wish
| you health and safety during the present health crisis and
| beyond. Very truly yours, ssyoutube.com
|
| Well that's just awesome.
| nine_k wrote:
| Next step would be for the copyright-enforcement industry to
| sue VPN providers, claiming that they are making excessive
| profits by letting users sidestep the geofences, and so they
| must share some of the profits.
| qwery wrote:
| It is always amusing to see free marketeers complaining
| about getting free marketed.
| Symmetry wrote:
| A transferable monopoly given to artists as a reward for
| their creation is very capitalist, but I'm not sure you
| could call that "free market".
| cykros wrote:
| Just like the fact that Hollywood got its start because
| the film studios moved out west to get out of the reach
| of Edison's lawyers when it came to his patents on film
| technology.
|
| It's hypocritical turtles all the way down.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| The hunted becomes the hunter. The victim becomes the
| oppressor. The hero lives long enough to see themselves
| turn into a villain. Etc.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > geofences
|
| Geofences are a great way to start copyright reform. Bobby
| from Zambezia downloaded your new X-heroes movie, and
| you're complaining about piracy losses? How can you claim
| losses, if you're geofencing your content and don't want
| Bobby's money?!
| tommica wrote:
| Well, Bobby should have thought of that before he so
| nastily stole from a massive corporation! Why would it be
| their fault, they didn't want Bobby to watch the movie,
| because let's face it, Bobby's a bit of an ass.
| Jenk wrote:
| I think having exclusive distribution rights within
| geographies is one such usecase for geofencing. This is
| why Netflix et al may have content available in some
| zones but not others.
| dp-hackernews wrote:
| It didn't work for DVD regions, so why on earth should it
| work for geo IP's???
|
| The mind boggles!
| EchoReflection wrote:
| The Internet is too global/ubiquitous (except in evil
| shitty countries like North Korea, China) to make
| dividing content availability by region realistic in the
| long run.
| Jenk wrote:
| Given the amount of money and effort going into these
| constraints today, one must concede that simply isn't
| true. There will always be an effort to constrain
| distribution of media because that is how the moguls keep
| rich.
| Zach_the_Lizard wrote:
| There are all kinds of different legal rights owing to
| differences in copyright law, contract law, court cases,
| the medium in question, etc. such that even if one rights
| holder gave out worldwide distribution rights, inevitably
| some local difference will require geofencing.
|
| Example: a famous {musician, artist, author, etc.} dies.
| His heirs dispute who owns the rights to his work.
|
| Courts in Country A give Heir A exclusive rights, but
| Country B gives Heir B those same rights. Other countries
| give both of them part ownership.
|
| Worse, a backup drummer / ghostwriter / etc. gets some
| rights by law in Country C due to a quirk in their local
| laws.
|
| Now a hypothetical Netflix has to negotiate with
| different parties in different countries.
|
| This is a mess all on its own.
|
| Add on decades of trading around rights on a per-country
| basis (or even per time period, per medium, etc.) as part
| of deals, and it's intractable.
|
| At one point I worked on software to record this kind of
| thing. It certainly was eye opening, to say the least.
| Needing to capture legal disputes was an important
| feature...
| msla wrote:
| Imagine an immaculately-formatted legal brief, complete
| with citations, that consists entirely of the phrase
| "fuck you" repeated indefinitely.
|
| That's all the reasoning they need.
| deelly wrote:
| Issue is that geofencing sometimes a direct results of
| different laws in different countries.
| poplet wrote:
| Google probably indexes 25% of the content available nowadays....
| I rarely use Google
| AhoyYarr wrote:
| Is there a good search engine that indexes more stuff?
| Zuiii wrote:
| Precisely what I wanted to ask as well. I only of yandex
| which gives really good results like old google, but I'd
| rather have alternatives in case when yandex fails.
|
| The general search engines that I know of are (ordered from
| best to worst): - yandex - ddg - google
|
| Literally any search engine, regardless of affiliation, is
| welcome as long as it returns google-grade results (old
| google ofc) for more than half its searches.
| lolinder wrote:
| It doesn't index more stuff overall, but marginalia.nu has a
| pretty great system for identifying non-commercial sites,
| which tend to be higher quality since they're not trying to
| sell crap.
|
| The creator recently started working on it full-time.
|
| https://search.marginalia.nu/
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I just installed the app. Thanks Google.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I learned about Fdroid because of something like this.
|
| Then I learned about Bromium(which is obsolete today, but was a
| great browser with adblock support)
| ransomewhere wrote:
| You mean Bromite?
| 1317 wrote:
| What happened to it?
| alisonatwork wrote:
| If you're looking for a Bromite successor, right now best way
| is to download the uazo builds direct from GitHub:
| https://github.com/uazo/bromite-buildtools There are some
| third party tools that will download the releases for you,
| but I'm fine to just manually pop by the repo whenever
| ungoogled-chromium[0] updates on my desktop.
|
| [0] https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
| hospitalJail wrote:
| It doesnt have the latest security updates though
| alisonatwork wrote:
| So far the uazo builds have only run up to a couple weeks
| behind Chromium mainline, unlike Bromite which could fall
| months behind. I'm not sure if there is a better privacy-
| oriented browser for Android right now if you want just
| want a stripped back Chromium. The other privacy-oriented
| browsers all seem to add a bunch of extra stuff.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Interesting, thank you for the rec.
|
| I need to actually try Fennec one of these days instead
| letting it sit on my phone.
|
| I still don't exactly trust these builds since they are
| small fries and I imagine not a ton of people are combing
| the code to make sure data isnt getting logged somewhere.
| They are great for browsing the internet, but I typically
| don't put passwords in them.
|
| I use DDG for that.
| jmorenoamor wrote:
| Another new user here. Great app
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| There a version of the NewPipe app which contains the
| SponsorBlock plugin. I use it since months and can't watch
| YouTube videos without it anymore.
| dspillett wrote:
| I block ads not because I'm completely anti-advert. I'm anti
| being-stalked-through-my-entire-life-and-having-my-details-
| sold-like-I'm-a-cheap-peice-of-meat, and unfortunately ATM
| blocking that also means blocking most online adverts.
|
| So I draw the line before sponsorblock. At least the content
| creators get a better cut of that than they get from YouTube
| monetisation & youtube can't take it away from them as easily
| at a whim, and those segments don't track me, and there is an
| increased chance that the sponsor is relevant to what I'm
| looking at (not what I clicked on days ago). One or two
| channels even manage to make the sponsor segments
| fractionally entertaining.
|
| I'm also anti irritating adverts of course, which does
| include manually skipping _some_ sponsor segments or avoiding
| channels that can be relied upon to be irritating in that
| way.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| The creator gets zero dollars from you watching sponsored
| segments, unless you actually go and buy the product using
| their promo code. So you are not helping them, only wasting
| your time.
|
| A better option is YouTube Premium + Sponsorblock. Then
| your time spent watching a video translates to payment to
| the video creator - at a higher rate than for users
| watching with ads. And you save your time by skipping
| sponsored segments.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> The creator gets zero dollars from you watching
| sponsored segments, unless you actually go and buy the
| product using their promo code. So you are not helping
| them, only wasting your time._
|
| That feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of how
| sponsorship works.
|
| The sponsors are not paying directly for viewings or
| sales (though number of eyeballs is one consideration in
| negotiating the worth for a sponsored block) but for the
| potential opportunity for sales offered by increases
| market awareness. It is far more subtle than paying for
| impressions/clicks like other advertising models.
|
| If no one watched them, the creator would get zero
| dollars full stop because the sponsorship simply wouldn't
| happen.
|
| _> A better option is YouTube Premium + Sponsorblock._
|
| I'll stop using youtube completely long before I pay them
| to stalk me (you may not get the ads on premium, but you
| are still being tracked to the fullest extent possible).
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > The sponsors are not paying directly for viewings
|
| And in that case you are not contributing by watching the
| ads. There's also a ton of sponsorship where the creator
| has a referral code that the viewer uses to purchase a
| product. In these cases they make money if you buy the
| product.
|
| If you're not going to buy anything, you are not helping
| the creator at all by watching any ads. Your are better
| off just blocking the ads to not waste your time.
| dspillett wrote:
| They are effectively paying for viewings, they are just
| not _directly_ paying for viewings. How do you know you
| will never be interested in something if you are never
| told things exist?
|
| Of course, if you are so anti-advert that you can't
| accept the slightest possibility that a sponsor segment
| _relevant to the clip you are consuming_ can 't ever
| possibly be of interest to you, or you'd avoid it even if
| it would otherwise interest you simply because you were
| informed about it by a sponsor segment, then yes,
| automatically skipping won't make any difference. But I
| consider that thought process to be somewhat blinkered,
| perhaps even reductio ad absurdum.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| I think life is too short to waste any time watching ads,
| with the absolutely minuscule chance that something
| relevant will be presented. My time is much more valuable
| than that, so I have nothing against paying for the
| content.
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm curious why you aren't anti-ad. Ads are psychological
| manipulation. Why would you want to subject yourself to
| that?
|
| I was recently visiting some family, and saw the garbage my
| 7-year-old nephew sits through to get to the YouTube video
| he wants to see[0]. I can only assume we're just training a
| new generation of kids to believe that ads are a normal,
| inevitable part of every kind of media consumption.
|
| I agree that creators need to be compensated somehow. And
| I'd be fine throwing a couple tens of cents per view of a
| video rather than either watch ads or block them and
| freeload. But micropayments will never take off (for
| understandable reasons), so that's pretty much never an
| option. For creators I watch frequently, I contribute to
| their Patreon if they have one, at least. But if someone
| links me a one-off video from someone I've never heard of,
| and will probably never watch a video from again, I'm not
| going to do that, and I'm certainly not going to let them
| pollute my brain with whatever advertising they've decided
| to push.
|
| But I loathe every form of advertising and will block it
| any chance I get. If I could wear AR glasses that blocked
| out things like billboards, I would.
|
| [0] (If my stupid grandfathered free GSuite account allowed
| it, I'd gift them a family YouTube Premium membership, but
| of course GSuite breaks random features everywhere.)
| dspillett wrote:
| _> I 'm curious why you aren't anti-ad._
|
| Mainly because to an extent they are a necessary evil, or
| at least we'll never convince enough of the right people
| that they aren't necessary.
|
| _> Ads are psychological manipulation._
|
| They are currently, which is why they get blocked by my
| anti-stalking-and-other-dickishness kick, but they don't
| _have_ to be. A simple advert (image and a little text,
| not directly obscuring what I 'm trying to read or
| bouncing around to break my attention from elsewhere
| artificially) for a product that might be relevant to
| what I'm looking at, doesn't seem evil to me.
| Unfortunately advertises are not satisfied with that and
| want full-page adverts with forced interaction and full
| user background tracking.
| TheCapeGreek wrote:
| > I can only assume we're just training a new generation
| of kids to believe that ads are a normal, inevitable part
| of every kind of media consumption.
|
| Maybe? I distinctly remember doing my utmost best to
| ignore TV ads between my cartoons as a kid. Especially
| <10yo I'd be basically chanting "boring boring boring" to
| myself until it was over, or just stay focused on toys.
|
| Then again, today's children have access to Youtube far
| earlier and with more control over what they watch, so
| you may have a point in that they're starting earlier and
| thus it gets normalised instead of "this is a sucky thing
| I'm going to try to ignore".
| phone8675309 wrote:
| The cartoons when I was a kid were advertisements
| themselves with breaks for further advertising: He-Man,
| GI Joe, Jem, My Little Pony (the old series), Teenage
| Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, etc.
| midoridensha wrote:
| >I was recently visiting some family, and saw the garbage
| my 7-year-old nephew sits through to get to the YouTube
| video he wants to see. I can only assume we're just
| training a new generation of kids to believe that ads are
| a normal, inevitable part of every kind of media
| consumption.
|
| Just like parents have a responsibility to teach their
| kids about safe sex, I think parents have a
| responsibility to teach their kids about ad-blockers.
| yetanotherloss wrote:
| I'm completely anti advert. They declared war on
| civilization 20 years ago and don't deserve to be treated
| as anything but a parasitic cultural disease. It didn't
| have to be this way, but that's where they took us.
| imiric wrote:
| 20 years ago? Advertising has corrupted every public
| medium since the dawn of print media, arguably even
| before that.
|
| In the 19th century, it was quackery and false
| advertising in newspapers, making snake oil salesmen
| rich.
|
| In the first half of the 20th century, advertising
| started using propaganda tactics to psychologically
| manipulate consumers, as pioneered by Edward Bernays[1],
| making tobacco companies rich.
|
| Radio and television amplified their reach and power,
| fueling modern consumerism. People were hooked on
| tobacco, corn products, sugar, fast food, and a million
| other mass produced products. Whether the products were
| harmful to society was irrelevant. The spice must flow.
|
| The internet was another major frontier, where ads could
| precisely target specific consumer profiles. Adtech was
| born to give this power to advertisers by facilitating
| data collection and creating the multi-billion dollar
| dark data broker market.
|
| Adtech was then (ab?)used by local and foreign agents to
| spread propaganda, disinformation, and conduct psyops at
| an unprecedented scale, disrupting democratic processes,
| toppling governments, causing social unrest, and boosting
| intolerance, xenophobia and racism on a global scale to
| levels unseen since WWII.
|
| And we haven't seen the worst of it yet. Once everyone
| has their own personal AI that is trained on the most
| intimate details of each personality, ads will become
| even more personal and manipulative. Advertisers are
| salivating at this opportunity, and adtech is surely
| experimenting with this right now.
|
| So, no, I refuse to participate in this perverse system,
| and subject myself to being psychologically manipulated.
| Companies and creators who depend on advertising don't
| deserve my business, attention or respect.
|
| [1] This man was evil beyond words. See Adam Curtis' The
| Century of the Self.
| stOneskull wrote:
| i find it doubly interesting that edward bernays's uncle
| was sigmund freud, and his nephew a founder and ceo of
| netflix.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Wow, Marc Bernays Randolph (first Netflix CEO) is really
| great-nephew of Edward Bernays (american propagandist)
| that is uncle of Sigmund Freud. Interesting how one close
| family shape public realations.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > advertising started using propaganda tactics to
| psychologically manipulate consumers
|
| Advertising and propaganda have always been the exact
| same thing, and in at least some latin languages it is
| plainly called propaganda in all occasions. As in people
| will say that they work in propaganda and universities
| offer degrees in propaganda.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| After WWII in US propaganda was renamed to "public
| relations".
| midoridensha wrote:
| >Advertising and propaganda have always been the exact
| same thing
|
| They're really not, though they are similar in many ways.
| They have different connotations: advertising is done
| generally by for-profit companies trying to sell stuff
| and make money, while propaganda is generally done by
| governments trying to shift or control public opinion. We
| have different words for these things for a good reason.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| But is there really a good reason? The only difference is
| that one tries to make you buy something and the other
| tries to make you do something. It works in the same way,
| an entity trying to propagate their agenda.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| I agree with Bill Hicks about what advertisers should be
| doing other than dreaming up new jingles.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| As long as you avoid things that are paid for by ads,
| there's no moral problem.
| kerkeslager wrote:
| Advertising is inherently immoral and it's our moral
| obligation to drive advertisers into bankruptcy.
|
| _All_ advertisers are liars. Even when they 're not
| directly saying untrue things, they're presenting a one-
| sided view of the truth, to the extent of being
| intentionally misleading.
|
| The harm done by these lies is incalculable. The
| distraction. The loss of self-esteem caused by ads always
| telling us we aren't enough, don't have enough. The fear
| caused by ads telling us we'll lose what we have. The
| loss of financial stability on things we don't need or
| want.
|
| And that's just what ads _are_. That 's not even talking
| about how advertising is done, with a million dishonest
| tricks to jam themselves in front of you or gather your
| data to lie to you more interestingly and convincingly.
|
| The only good ad is a blocked ad that cost the
| advertisers money.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _Advertising is inherently immoral and it 's our moral
| obligation to drive advertisers into bankruptcy._
|
| I agree with this on principle, but in reality I wonder
| how we'll pay for content online if this were to happen.
|
| Micropayments will never be a thing, and subscriptions
| don't make sense for random one-off videos or articles.
| hughesjj wrote:
| > Micropayments will never be a thing
|
| Why not?
|
| I'd love to see something like "I donate xx CPU cycles
| upon viewing this content" or something. Computebis a
| resource, same with networking, and there's already a lot
| of them demanded by shitty ad platforms.
|
| I'd much rather donate those cycles to BOINC or hell,
| even ETH over ads
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Isn't that just gating websites with crypto payments?
| midoridensha wrote:
| This is really extreme and reductionist. Without
| advertising, you wouldn't even know that many products
| and services exist. You can't rely on word-of-mouth for
| everything.
|
| Of course, so many advertisers have abused their power
| that blocking ads is a good choice for many reasons, but
| don't make the mistake of calling all advertising "evil".
| Without it, how do you know a new movie is coming soon,
| or that someone's invented and is selling a new computer
| peripheral, for instance?
|
| The old-style small, highly-targeted, text-only ads that
| Google used to show alongside search results really were
| the pinnacle of advertising I think. They were great for
| learning about something that would fix whatever problem
| you were googling about.
| imiric wrote:
| > Without it, how do you know a new movie is coming soon
|
| By visiting and/or subscribing to cinema listing web
| sites, subscribing to cinema-related YouTube channels or
| social media accounts, visiting my local cinema and
| watching 30 minutes of trailers, seeing cinema listings
| in the newspaper, or calling Moviefone.
|
| > or that someone's invented and is selling a new
| computer peripheral
|
| By visiting and/or subscribing to computer-related web
| sites that announce, review or sell computer peripherals.
|
| None of the advances in advertising in the last 50 years
| have improved my lifestyle or consumer experience. All
| it's done is improve the efficiency of manufacturing the
| need for a product, embedding brand names in the consumer
| subconscious, and manipulating them into buying a
| specific product, regardless if it solves their problem,
| or even if it's detrimental to their wellbeing and
| health. And since the advent of the internet, adtech is
| responsible for creating and supporting a user data gold
| rush, violating the privacy of every internet user in the
| process, as well as enabling hostile forces to use the
| same system for information warfare.
|
| So, no, advertising is not a required or even necessary
| part of society, and is responsible for incalculable
| damages caused by the harmful products it promotes. The
| only reason it is so prevalent is because psychological
| subversion tactics are very effective, and it's the
| easiest way for companies to increase revenue.
| blackbear_ wrote:
| > Advertising is inherently immoral
|
| Why? In principle, advertising is a way to propagate
| information in a market, trying to match offer with
| demand. Without any such mechanism, markets would be
| hugely inefficient (i.e., it would be annoying to find a
| shop selling what you are looking for, since you would
| need to visit many before finding one that sells that
| thing).
|
| The problem with ads, like you are saying, is that being
| scummy and dishonest is by far the most effective way of
| attracting demand.
| jraph wrote:
| You can look things up when you need something, you don't
| need to wait for an ad to annoy you to discover
| something.
|
| What's more, usually, you hear ads for big players, not
| the small ones, which are often the most interesting.
|
| In particular, hearing about NordVPN every other video is
| not necessary.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Look things up where?
| jraph wrote:
| On the internet with a search engine, on a map, etc. Or
| ask friends / family, actually.
|
| That's what I do when I need something I don't know where
| to find. Before the internet you had the yellow pages, I
| guess, and word of mouth.
|
| In any case, I'm pretty sure I never ever ever heard or
| saw an ad that made be discover something I was
| interested in.
|
| I don't want to allocate any time during which I
| passively listen or watch ads in the hope it will lead to
| some epiphany.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| And that is a huge part of problem with sustainability
| and magnification of problems that would otherwise stay
| local. PFAS, microplastics, pollution... It's all
| consequence of overproduction of useless things that are
| consumed by society manipulated by ads.
|
| The product is "ad" itself if it is good. If not, you
| need extra advertisements.
|
| For me it is immoral to consume ads.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think this is a category error. Those bad things aren't
| driven by ads. Ads drive economies of scale possible if
| people have heard of your product without word of mouth,
| which lower prices and help producers understand what
| people want. Productiveness will sometimes drive things
| like microplastics, as it's hard to know the effects of
| doing something new without doing that thing.
|
| That's the theoretical response. In practice: how would I
| sell my car without ads? Would I sit and wait for people
| to be attracted to it and ask me if it's for sale?
| t0bia_s wrote:
| I should specify "corporate product advertisement".
|
| Also... You advert a selling of product that is already
| made and used. I tough about those silly ads for new kind
| of electronics, cars, junk food, etc.
|
| Btw, why are you selling your car?
|
| - ...help producers understand what people want.
|
| You always need what you don't have and others do. Do
| you?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > Also... You advert a selling of product that is already
| made and used.
|
| So no one should know about new products for sale, only
| second hand ones?
|
| > You always need what you don't have and others do. Do
| you?
|
| I'm selling it because it doesn't have 7 seats for when
| we have overseas relatives who can't afford to rent a car
| when they visit, and its diesel engine is not necessary
| for my much-reduced weekly mileage. Assuming I want just
| because others have is extremely shallow.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| - So no one should know about new products for sale, only
| second hand ones?
|
| No, I mean advertisement that is made primary for profit
| and selling things that would otherwise shouldn't be
| sold. Promoting weak products.
| skydhash wrote:
| > That's the theoretical response. In practice: how would
| I sell my car without ads?
|
| You make an announcement that you have a car to sell.
| Maybe provide some details. I don't think people mind
| announcement. They mind the intrusion and manipulation.
| So, I don't mind seeing in the paper that someone has a
| car to sell. But I absolutely hate when I'm forced to
| watch that you have the most beautiful car when I'm just
| loading an article.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| What you call an announcement with details about
| something you're selling?
| skydhash wrote:
| Still an announcement. But if the goal is to promote,
| then it's an advertisment. There's a difference between
| making known that there's something to buy and enticing
| people to buy something. It may be the way to do business
| (because competition) but that does not means I should
| subject myself to it, especially its current form.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| Announce your car sale in a catalogue of local cars for
| sale. Ads in catalogues are tolerable because only people
| desiring to see ads will pick up such a catalogue. Ads
| placed in places intended to be visible to people who
| aren't specifically trying to look for ads are the
| problem. Those ads which try to force themselves on
| people have an inherently adversarial relationship with
| people, and therefore we're under no moral obligation to
| tolerate it. People who make it their business to
| advertise in that manner are absolute gutter scum.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| We're under no moral obligation to play by their rules.
| Read _Rules for Radicals_.
| ktosobcy wrote:
| If you use NewPipe then there is virtually no difference if
| you view the sponsor part or not?
| dspillett wrote:
| It makes no direct difference, they don't get paid
| directly per view like with monetising via youtube ads
| and such, but if no one ever sees the sponsor segments
| the sponsorship will dry up and the content will need to
| be paid for by other means (the creators just loving it
| enough to make it for free, some of the audience paying
| by some means, etc.) which usually isn't a long-term
| viable position.
| BigElephant wrote:
| sponsorblock doesn't just have sponsor segments. There are
| segments for intro, outros, filler content, non music
| section for music videos, etc. Depending on the type of
| content you watch, skipping these segments are great.
| Sponsorblock has a config option so you can toggle on/off
| which type of segments you want to skip.
| dcow wrote:
| I agree with you in spirit.
|
| Here's a thought experiment, though: if you manually skip
| sponsor segments every single time you watch a video by
| dragging the scrubber, is that any different from having a
| piece of software do as much for you, in an automated
| fashion?
| dspillett wrote:
| If it is the same advert I've seen many times for one of
| those casual games that all look the same (battle of the
| tanks, tank war, waring tanks, battling tanks, fantasy
| tanks, tank fantasy, ...) then that isn't even relevant
| to what I'm watching (I wonder how much they pay for a
| spot on an LTT vid or similar?) it'll get skipped every
| time. If it is something that might be relevant but I'm
| already aware (either I already was, or I've already seen
| the ad four times this week) again it'll get skipped.
|
| The Running Is BS podcast is sponsored by a tea company:
| irrelevant to me as I don't drink tea at all (there is
| some relevance to the people making the cast, which is
| how the segment came about initially), hitting skip-
| forward-30s a couple of times each fortnight is no
| hardship to me. I listen enough that I perhaps should
| consider doing the Patreon thing, the fact that I and no
| doubt many others in a similar position _don 't_ do the
| Patreon thing is why the sponsor segment is useful to the
| creators.
|
| _> is that any different from having a piece of software
| do as much for you_
|
| The difference is that something new and potentially
| useful doesn't get skipped and it would automatically
| with sponsorblock. Hitting the right arrow key a couple
| of times is hardly a hardship. Before the sponsor
| segments on a video channel or podcast get to the point
| of irritation where I'd use something like sposorblock,
| I'll probably just start avoiding looking at that channel
| at all.
| dcow wrote:
| It's not that it's a hardship to press right a few times,
| it's more that I'm trying to understand, academically,
| how to make a "respectful" skipping tool. Because I
| believe both that in-content ads are the most user
| respecting ads and deserve better engagement/treatment
| than "universally skip", but also that users are not
| morally obligated to consume ads even for ad-sponsored
| content (is't the advertiser's, and only the
| advertiser's, problem if users aren't interested).
|
| Sounds like the requirements would be: 1) it plays every
| new sponsorship pitch once, which you can still manually
| skip, and 2) it maybe asks you whether you want to skip
| on a per-instance level?
| dspillett wrote:
| _> it plays every new sponsorship pitch once_
|
| Perhaps once in a specified amount of time. Every two
| weeks? Sometimes I forget things and a reminder isn't
| inappropriate. Spread over all channels if possible,
| rather than once per channel per period.
|
| Also rather than silently skipping, perhaps a couple of
| seconds pause with "sponsor segment for <product>
| skipped" displayed, at least as a default the individual
| users can switch off.
| katzenversteher wrote:
| I installed in yesterday. It has some bugs that really drive me
| insane but otherwise it's great.
| katzenversteher wrote:
| To be specific: In full screen mode it turns off the screen
| after a while and so far I could not find any setting that
| disables this behavior. The things I found on the internet
| where about dimming the screen and the suggested solutions
| against it did not work for me. It seems that is goes into
| "audiobook" / "listening" mode for some reason.
|
| When I press the power button of my smartphone again the
| video player is a floating mini player.
| h4x0rr wrote:
| Classic Streisand effect
| mynameisash wrote:
| Oh man, I'd never heard of NewPipe until now. I've literally
| had it installed for three minutes, and I am amazed. I was
| able to dial up a music video that I frequently listen to
| without ads, I could immediately background the app, and even
| turn off my screen while still listening.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > I could immediately background the app, and even turn off
| my screen while still listening.
|
| Ads are a major nuisance but those features are also really
| important because YouTube deliberately crippled their free-
| as-in-beer mobile app, to push folks toward a paid app.
| katzenversteher wrote:
| I also just installed the app yesterday. I like it too but
| this "turn off the screen" thing happens when I watch
| videos in full screen too to me. I happily watch a video
| and suddenly the screen turns off while the audio is still
| on. Didn't find a way to solve that yet.
| runiq wrote:
| Welcome to the dark side, enjoy your not-cookies.
| prince005 wrote:
| I fail to understand why people think that YouTube is a charity
| service. They are a business and act like one, you'd do the same
| if someone threatens your business.
| McDyver wrote:
| I don't think that's the issue.
|
| The problem is that YouTube/google want "le beurre, l'argent du
| beurre, et le sourire de la cremiere".
|
| They want to (and are managing) to distort the openness of the
| web: they provide free access to a service, the way the web
| intended to be; but don't want people to use the tools in the
| way they are meant to be used.
|
| If they want to charge for the service, fine, it's their
| prerogative but don't blame the users for using the tools as
| they are meant to be used.
|
| Why don't they stop free aceess? They can, no one is stopping
| them from doing business that way.
|
| Because they want everything, that's why. When will their
| "business" stop? What's the end goal?
| userbinator wrote:
| Why should I be forced to use (a recent, and thus increasingly
| more user-hostile version of) Big Browser in order to visit a
| site? There's a huge difference between "not supported" meaning
| "you're on your own" and "illegal".
|
| Call it what it really is: user-agent discrimination. Don't let
| them dictate the software (and hardware) that we can use.
| jedberg wrote:
| The biggest failure of the DMCA was that there are no
| consequences for false accusations.
|
| That one small change would make a huge difference. Put the
| liability on the reporter for false claims.
| mavhc wrote:
| If it's wrong you just counter-notice and it's put back again,
| does take two weeks though. If the initial person is not the
| copyright holder they've committed perjury.
|
| Seems like it's been rescinded though
| jedberg wrote:
| Which is an undue burden on legit publishers who get
| effectively DDosed by big publishers with money. If the big
| publishers have no consequences, then they have no incentive
| to stop.
|
| If they got ever increasing fines for false claims, then they
| would have an incentive to actually only make legit claims.
| mavhc wrote:
| Set up and automatic counter-notice bot to start with, thus
| annoying them back.
|
| However: Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents
| under this section--
|
| (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that
| material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or
| misidentification, shall be liable for any damages,
| including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the
| alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright
| owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who
| is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the
| service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in
| removing or disabling access to the material or activity
| claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed
| material or ceasing to disable access to it.
|
| 17 U.S.C.A. SS 512
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| We could always manufacture some consequences ourselves...
| DropInIn wrote:
| It's only a failure from our perspective.
|
| From the perspective of those who lobbied and those who passed
| it, the DMCA is working exactly as intended.
|
| They always intended for the law to be able to be used for
| abusive purpose against any without significant financial
| resources.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| URL should refer to the original source, which is
| https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383
| winterqt wrote:
| I think this blog post by the Newpipe team is a fine link to
| use to provide context + promote their CTA so people can help
| them, no?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Isn't Google forced to comply with DMCA takedown requests
| regardless of their legitimacy?
| chris37879 wrote:
| No, that's just how they've chosen to handle them to keep their
| unofficial "safe harbor" status since net neutrality is dead.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Safe harbor is officially part of DMCA though where if you
| are notified of infringing content and take it down you
| aren't liable right?
|
| https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A.
| ..
|
| > DMCA Title II, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability
| Limitation Act ("OCILLA"), creates a safe harbor for online
| service providers (OSPs, including ISPs) against copyright
| infringement liability, provided they meet specific
| requirements.
| wtallis wrote:
| The notice [0] says " _Kind of Work: Unspecified_ " and "
| _Original URLs: No copyrighted URLs were submitted_ " so
| the safe harbor provisions pertaining to copyright
| infringement aren't really applicable here.
|
| [0] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383
| kelnos wrote:
| Safe harbor has nothing to do with net neutrality. Not
| complying with DMCA takedown notices would leave them open to
| legal liability, which I think is fair for them not to want
| to do.
| hathym wrote:
| www.microsoft.com and play.google.com are also listed in the DMCA
| take down list :D
|
| https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383#
| [deleted]
| aembleton wrote:
| I've just got the full URLs. Microsoft is for
| https://www.microsoft.com/store/apps/9PM4ZSJWHFHS so I guess it
| was some app they wanted removing from the store and
| play.google.com was for a video downloader:
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=video.download...
|
| Full list: https://yt1s.mobi/en88/
| https://yt1s.mobi/en89/ https://yt1s.mobi/en90/
| https://yt1s.mobi/en91/ https://yt1s.youtubemini.com/
| https://y2mate.tools/en59ac/yt1s.html
| https://aulavirtual.ins.gob.pe/blog/index.php?entryid=5488
| https://www.facebook.com/105111868246057/posts/httpsyt1scomfor-
| mp3-httpsmp3downycom/105114161579161/
| https://soundcloud.com/jameshaskins928/yt1s-com-richboytroy-
| beginning/sets https://yt1s.info/
| https://www.similarweb.com/website/yt1s.com/competitors/
| https://www.saashub.com/compare-yt1s-ltd-vs-youtube-video-and-
| audio-downloader?ref=sidebar
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/yt1s/
| https://xranks.com/alternative/yt1s.online
| https://qnnit.com/yt1s/
| https://www.trustpilot.com/review/yt1s.com https://m.ap
| kpure.com/yt1s/com.technologygateway.video_downloader
| https://b.trafo.no/6d/yt1-youtube-downloader/pages
| https://www.cyclonis.com/es/is-yt1s-com-safe-to-use/
| https://yt1s.works/ena/
| https://nz.trustpilot.com/review/yt1s.com
| https://us.host-tools.com/website-status/yt1s.com/http
| https://en.y2mate.is/266/ https://ssyoutube.com/en620/
| https://snapsave.io/en45 https://save-
| from.net/en19/youtube-video-downloader
| https://gotranscript.com/youtube-downloader
| https://y2mate.tools/en59ac/ https://tubemate.net/
| https://www.freemake.com/free_video_downloader_paradisiac/
| https://yt-convert.com/en20
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-downloader-
| professi/elicpjhcidhpjomhibiffojpinpmmpil?hl=en
| https://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/free-youtube-video-
| downloader/ https://www.dvdvideosoft.com/free-youtube-
| download-en2 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/easy-youtube-video-download/
| https://www.vlogr.com/features/youtube-downloader/
| https://newpipe.net/ https://ytshorts.savetube.me/3
| https://www.youtubedownloaderhd.com/download.html
| https://ytmp3.nu/58c/
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_YouTube_downloaders
| https://ytmp3.nu/CeFA/
| https://ytgoconverter.com/en_us/youtube-to-mp3-converter24/
| https://tomp3.cc/ent77no
| https://x2download.app/en69/download-youtube-to-mp3
| https://ytmp3.cc/2e8/ https://listenvid.net/us_131f1/
| https://savemp3.net/9vpv2/
| https://yt5s.io/en82/youtube-to-mp3 https://yt-
| convert.com/youtube-to-mp3-20
| http://wiki.coursemerchant.com/6d/youtube-to-
| mp3-converter/pages https://www.movavi.com/learning-
| portal/best-youtube-to-mp3-converter.html
| https://www.getsubly.com/post/youtube-to-mp3-converter
| https://techjury.net/best/youtube-to-mp3-converter/
| https://www.dvdvideosoft.com/en11
| https://yt1s.mobi/en69/youtube-to-mp4/
| https://4kdownload.to/en1/
| https://y2mate.tools/en59ae/youtube-mp4
| https://notube.site/es/youtube-app-v52
| https://www.ytbvideoly.com/d7-youtube-to-mp4/
| https://10downloader.com/en/62/youtube-to-mp4-converter
| https://www-ytmp4.com/ https://ytmp4.tube/
| https://yt1s.de/youtube-to-mp4?l=en18
| https://plugin.crimple.co.uk/z/ms/x7v/youtube-converter-
| mp4-converter/pages https://x2download.app/en77
| https://en.savefrom.net/21-youtube-to-mp4-1.html
| https://ytmp4converter.com/en/
| https://youtube4kdownloader.com/en71/download-
| youtube-4k-mp4.html https://y2mate.la/download-yt-to-
| mp4-en1/ https://yt-convert.com/youtube-to-mp4-20
| https://ytmp4.top/en1/ https://ssyoutube.com/en623/
| https://ssyoutube.com/en624/
| https://ssyoutube.com/en625/
| https://ssyoutube.com/en626/
| https://www.4kdownload.com/products/videodownloader-29
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=video.downloader.
| videodownloader&hl=en&gl=US
| https://www.microsoft.com/store/apps/9PM4ZSJWHFHS
| https://y2mate.com.co/en6
| https://givefastlink.com/allvideo/
| https://www.yt2conv.com/youtube-downloader-53/
| https://addoncrop.com/v17/youtube-downloader/
| https://ytshorts.savetube.me/
| https://youtube4kdownloader.com/en71/cut-youtube-video.html
| gumby wrote:
| It's still in Duck Duck Go.
| kulahan wrote:
| It's also still in Google if you search for a specific-enough
| phrase.
|
| `newpipe site` brings it up as the first result
| McSwag wrote:
| Wait, if there's a site I don't want to see search results for I
| can just submit a DMCA?
| arun-mani-j wrote:
| > As a result, websites for fake clones of NewPipe that mimic our
| homepage will tend to rank higher in the results. This could
| ultimately cause users to fall for such scams.
|
| Exactly, causes more harm than any good.
| mijoharas wrote:
| I clicked through to the lumen database link included[0], and it
| says "notice rescinded.".
|
| There is no updated blog post. But newpipe shows up in a google
| search for me. Does anyone have an update on this article?
|
| [0] https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34149383
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-12 23:02 UTC)