[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.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nlEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    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.netEnglish
      11·
      1 month 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.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nlEnglish
        2·
        1 month ago

        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.netEnglish
          11·
          1 month 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.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nlEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            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.netEnglish
              11·
              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.