![]() ![]() Recently infamous for tracking down JacksFilms' physical location and bragging about it on Instagram. ![]() Notorious "reaction streamer" that doesn't actually do any reacting in her videos made up of entirely other people's YouTube uploads. Ok, before you cite a Ninth Circuit opinion arguing that mere downloading still has liability or something, I'm not saying that you CAN'T EVER be sued for watching YouTube, only that you'd have to sue Google first, and they have big pockets. If you want a viable YouTube competitor, you want net neutrality regulation. how much they can double-bill the sender of the packets - rather than the cost of that traffic. The underlying problem is that we don't have any common-carrier regulation on ISPs, so they price traffic based on "value" - i.e. These same ISPs also did all sorts of questionable things to throttle or block BitTorrent traffic back in the day, I imagine they'd come up with new attacks on PeerTube traffic today. Google considers YouTube to be profitable and has done so for many years, but that is almost certainly because YouTube gets to use Google's favorable peering arrangements with last-mile ISPs. Though, to be clear, video distribution is still hilariously expensive. Monetization is the thing that really put YouTube on the map, not free distribution. ![]() If you took YouTube away today, you'd have creators moving to Nebula or Floatplane, because there's still money in that. Imagine, say, someone suing individual P2P users to try and shut down, say, a SSSniperWolf video. P2P inherently shoves all the liability onto the users because you dox yourself every time you use it. This is a third role of YouTube we don't really consider: they handle all the stupid copyright stuff so that users don't have to. ![]() People got sued for BitTorrent traffic all the time up to and including dedicated settlement extortion operations (e.g. Speaking of litigation, nobody's been sued for watching YouTube. YouTube was almost the same way at first until YouTube got spooked by the (arguably baseless) Viacom lawsuit and decided to adopt proactive copyright filtering. P2P never really had a YouTube-like creator scene almost everyone using P2P was using it to download movies for free. I'd rather direct my donations to open or non-enshittified services than supporting a dying business model. But avoid at all costs: it's a walking digital cancer in its terminal phase.Įven paying a subscription to them to get rid of the ads wouldn't help. Either I consume videos from anywhere else, or, when I have no alternatives, I use Piped. They are in a terminal phase of enshittification - the one where they look so much after they bottom line that they don't care if they to turn their whole platform into a big billboard or shut down all of their APIs. It's quite clear that they've decided to invest enough resources to embrace full war against anybody who's sick of their ads. I even set up a small Selenium suite to scrape video results directly from their UI. I've been chasing their API and FE changes for a while. Just.stopping relying on YouTube's frontend. And then just use LibRedirect/UntrackMe to convert all of the YouTube URLs to Piped URLs - you won't send a single packet to that digital sewage, and you won't even notice any difference. Plus, thanks to yt-dlp, it doesn't only work only with YouTube, but with hundreds of other websites with closed media URLs (Facebook, TikTok, Twitter.). I've been running my Piped instance for a while, and there are many public Piped instances available on the Web as well.Īnd, if you don't want the headache of running your own proxied instance or hopping between public instances, use Platypush - it wires together Piped as a backend, with yt-dlp as a local proxy/scaper, and a multitude of media plugins to allow you streaming directly the YouTube media files to any media device. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |