[Bug] "This helps protect our community." · Issue #4734 · iv-org/invidious
github.com
Update 21/09/2024: #4734 (comment) EDIT by @unixfox: The Invidious team is aware of this issue. It appears that it affects all the software using YouTube. Please refrain from commenting if you have...

cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685

EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says

Hello,

Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore.

If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..

This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don’t abuse them since the number is really low.

Feel free to discuss this politely on Matrix or IRC.

  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    Sure but it’s really common to see embedded youtube videos on storefronts, and if storefronts en masse abandoned it that’s one more piece of the market that youtube has lost.

    They can’t keep locking it down and not lose market share, is my point. They’re enshittifying so much, so fast, and eventually there will be a tipping point.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        “Massive increase” I think needs a source.

        And they rely on the network effect to be the de facto standard video hoster. Every little bit of that network that they carve off while they’re enshittifying brings them closer to the critical point where people can afford to ditch them.

        The logic that they can “afford” to lose marketshare is exactly what will make them keep losing it until people migrate en masse and they lose all of their marketshare.

        • Petter1@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          3 months ago

          Youtube is now big enough for not caring about the network effect.

          1. Start companies
          2. make a free product with network effect
          3. gain a lot of users
          4. now that you have your user base, user growth is not as relevant anymore and therefore network effect is not needed anymore
          5. enshitificate for more ad revenue, more tracking and direct subscriptions
          6. profit (finally after decades)

          Capitalism is just fucked 🤷🏻🏴‍☠️

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            What? No, the network effect is why they have a dominant position. The network effect comes from their user base.

            Enshittification is how platforms die, it’s not a winning business model, it’s just an outworking of capitalism’s contradictions.

            The way you wrote that shows you don’t understand the principles at all.

            I could explain further but you’d have to express interest.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
            0·
            3 months ago

            Source for what? The network effect? I gave you a link, you can read.

            And youtube is enshittifying.

            These are both well-established effects. My sourcing is finished now. It beats your “pure speculation” unless you have something else you want to add.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
                0·
                3 months ago

                Oh so you want sources for literally every tiny claim with no evidence that you’ve engaged at all, but you’re sticking with “pure speculation” for your claims and you’re fine with that? Just checking.

                  • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
                    0·
                    3 months ago

                    That’s not how that works. I told you the point I had a problem with and wanted sourced, and you admitted it was pure speculation.

                    If you are skeptical about anything specific I’m saying, you can ask for the same thing. You didn’t, you just said I hadn’t sourced anything, which wasn’t true, I gave you links so you could educate yourself, and since you’re still confused on what any of it means, apparently you didn’t do that. When I asked you what you wanted specifically sourced, you named everything, which is as pointless as naming nothing.

                    This is presumably because you don’t actually care about sources, you were just embarrassed that you had to admit it was pure speculation and you wanted to project that back at me.

                    If you’re actually curious to understand what I’m saying, you can ask a specific question, but you’re not doing that. If you’re just going to keep insisting that I’m pulling things out of my arse, you’re wrong, but I won’t keep replying.