this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
710 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59549 readers
3124 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 141 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Not just invidious, they've just de facto blocked video embedding:

If you're wondering how a viable competitor could arise, other companies needing a video hosting solution that they can rely on to run their storefronts is a perfect use case. This is the Humble Bundle storefront, and they could pretty easily spin up a peertube instance. If that became commonplace, it could be one way for peertube to become ubiquitous.

EDIT: This is related to my VPN I believe, but storefronts still aren't going to be happy if they can't rely on their storefronts working for everyone.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

yo rainworld i used to have a friend that was a fan of that game

[–] turtletracks@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's a 10/10 for me! Amazing game but definitely not for everyone

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago
[–] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I dont feel like i wanna say it on lemmy

[–] FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't curious about your friend until this comment lmao. Cheers friend.

[–] Mwa@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Alr enjoy your day

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

aww, thanks!
-rain world

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Professional hosting for business use is not hard, and fairly common even. But these make up a tiny fraction of YouTube videos, and they mostly post there to get organic growth and be suggested to people already watching YouTube.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

They can't keep locking it down and not lose market share, is my point

They can very much afford to lose a tiny amount of marketshare in exchange for a massive increase in ad and subscription revenue, is my point.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"Massive increase" I think needs a source.

Don't have one. Pure speculation. Much like yours, I assume? Unless you have a source to the contrary?

How often do you see professional videos on the trending page on YT?

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Source for what?

This:

They're enshittifying so much, so fast, and eventually there will be a tipping point.

or this:

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.

or this:

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.

And youtube is enshittifying.

Yes, you've said that several times.

These are both well-established effects.

The fact that it exists is not evidence that it's taking place here.

My sourcing is finished now.

LOL no.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh so you want sources for literally every tiny claim

Bruh. You were the one asking for sources... I was simply establishing the fact that neither of us had them.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's not how that works.

LOL What? That's exactly how that works.

you admitted it was pure speculation.

Right. The question is why you can't do the same.

If you are skeptical about anything specific I'm saying, you can ask for the same thing.

I already did.

you just said I hadn't sourced anything, which wasn't true, I gave you links so you could educate yourself

You linked to a general concept, and absolutely nothing about how that concept applies to the topic at hand.

When I asked you what you wanted specifically sourced, you named everything, which is as pointless as naming nothing.

LOL why won't you just admit you don't have any sources? This is so ridiculous. It's okay.

you were just embarrassed that you had to admit it was pure speculation

If I was embarrassed I wouldn't have admitted it at all. I probably would have accused you of not providing sources while sourcing random things I read about on Wikipedia while refusing any hint as to how they relate to the current conversation or back up my statements.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago

I've told you how the concepts apply, if you found it confusing you could ask. You didn't.

But you've admitted you're not actually interested in my answers, you just want to accuse me of pulling things out of my arse:

I was simply establishing the fact that neither of us had them.

I don't know why I'd bother with someone whose only point here is to tear down whatever I'm saying. You don't even seem to have a position.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Could be, maybe it's intermittent, but the more times they try to lock this shit down and it stops working for storefronts, the more unreliable it becomes.

What percentage of visits can they afford to have this error happen before they seek alternatives? If it were my business and I didn't know how many customers were closing the store page because the video didn't play and they lost interest, I would be immediately looking for an alternative.

EDIT: Still broken for me. I can fix it by turning off my VPN, but storefronts are going to want to sell to everyone, including the VPN users.

[–] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

is that a possible workaround? Also, a tip from my school trying to block YouTube (idk if it applies here) is that you can 'add to queue' to where it plays in the corner then there's a button to make it bigger.

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 1 month ago

other companies needing a video hosting solution that they can rely on to run their storefronts is a perfect use case.

Many companies use Vimeo for this.

[–] flames5123@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I watch embedded videos all the time. Literally hundreds this weekend. Embedded is not “de facto blocked”.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Well I now can't unless I disable my VPN. Storefronts would probably like VPN users to be able to use their stores, in which case they might be more interested in an alternative.

[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago