In the new TOS of Youtube , it states that if your account is not deemed commercially viable, your Google account (i.e. your Gmail, your Google Photos, your Google Drive, etc.) can be closed down:
YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google
account’s access to all or part of the Service if YouTube
believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the
Service to you is no longer commercially viable.
> YouTube may suspend or terminate your access, your Google account, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we believe there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates
Edit: just to be cristal clear, yes, YouTube can terminate your Google account
youtube-dl --dateafter now-7days --playlist-end 10 --download-archive '/path/to/folder/downloaded.txt' -o '/path/to/folder/%(title)s.%(ext)s' -- 'https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw'
You can play around with the parameters to get the behavior you want (there are tons more than I don't use), I kept it pretty simple. In my case it checks the channel page for videos that are newer than 7 days (it runs daily but this gives me a buffer). If there are more than 10 videos newer than 7 days it only checks the first 10. It stores previously downloaded video information in downloaded.txt so it doesn't download duplicate videos, and outputs the video in the format videoName.ext.
Then throw that into a shell script along with any other channels you want and set up a cron job to run it as often as you'd like. You'll also probably want to put 'youtube-dl -U' into a cron job to keep it up to date, YouTube frequently changes things that breaks functionality of youtube-dl.
It's on my github if anyone wants to take a look. I don't use bash often, so if anyone sees better ways to do things I'm all ears.
Now... this may seem like a silly question: What does the '--' do before the channel url? I know '--' is normally used for parameters longer than one character, but that one is kinda just floating about haha.
You can have your YouTube account shut down and still have an email account
Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube for Cause
YouTube may suspend or terminate your access, _your Google account_ , or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if
(a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement;
(b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or
(c) we believe there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
Yes, just because they can, doesn’t mean they have to, but they do it anyways.
They are now at least making it much more obvious
The thing that was apparently against unspoken Youtube policy here was this kind of interactive, emote-driven streaming. But I get the impression Markiplier didn't get banned, only their fans.
It's bizarre and alarming.
But that's beside the point. Losing the ability to receive email is not something that should ever happen under any circumstances.
(IANAL, and I have no clue if what I said is right).
p.s., not to be snarky, but you ought to add a disclaimer that you're a Googler in your comment!
They probably know who I am though when I browse “anonymously”. Am I at risk?
It's insane to me that Google has gotten so hostile, they place little to no value on individual accounts, meanwhile those accounts are the lifeline of so many individuals and businesses.
However, I only use it on a single tablet that is devoted exclusively to that purpose. As with all Google services, I wouldn't dare to actually use it on a machine that I use for anything else.
I bet this move is also to kill the workings of extensions like DecentralEyes and others that try to protect users from being tracked. The whole changing of the API into a "sure we'll block that URL for ya, sometimes maybe" model reeks of increasing user tracking. They'll work out the kinks to let AdBlockers function again. But they'll have their tracking back.
(Disclosure: I work at Google, not on Chrome, and don't have any inside information on this)
Meanwhile a bunch of unrelated extensions will be killed, the ones that rely on modifying requests and which have nothing to do with ad blocking. Innovation around extensions that involves modifying requests will be halted, and everyone will suffer as a result, except Google.
Crooks will have continued and easy access to user data, since Manifest v3 is not focused on protecting user privacy.
I can bet on that.
I will make a public prediction that after one year of Manifest V3 actually shipping to users in mainline Chrome:
- Assuming that Manifest V3's declarative API is not significantly changed from its current implementation.
- If you visit each of the top 10 publishers in the US (including open publishing platforms like Twitter/Facebook/Youtube)
- If you compare Chrome and Firefox, each with the most-recommended ad-blocking/tracker-blocking extensions on their equivalent web stores installed (currently Ublock Origin, but we'll leave it open. "Most recommended" means that among technical users, this extension is the most commonly recommended. There's a little ambiguity here, but not sure how to narrow it.).
- Firefox will block more web trackers (65% likelyhood).
- Firefox will block more visible ads and popups (55% likelyhood).
There are a couple of reasons why I feel comfortable making those two predictions:
- Twitter and Facebook both try really hard to get around adblockers, and Firefox will be more likely to be able to combat their strategies in the future.
- Extensions like Privacy Badger will already have a more difficult time working in Manifest V3, so there's potential for new adblocking strategies to develop in Firefox that can't be ported.
- Safari made similar changes, and it's already less effective than Firefox at adblocking, so it seems reasonable to guess that Chrome will follow the same path.
- Properly configured, Firefox is already better than Chrome at blocking web-trackers, and I think Firefox will roll those changes out by default to ordinary users before Chrome does.
There are a few reasons why I'm hedging my bets:
- The advertising market is volatile, and might change significantly in the next year (privacy laws, etc...) This is unlikely, but not so unlikely that I can completely discount it.
- Chrome has research teams working on some interesting privacy strategies. I think it's mostly just talk and they won't do much of significance in a year, but I can't completely discount it.
- A mass exodus to Firefox could force Chrome to adapt Manifest V3 to be more open. This is also unlikely, but again, I can't completely discount it.
- And just general uncertainty, because the longer out you predict the more uncertainty you should introduce.
55% and 65% seem like very low numbers, but I think they're a relatively bold prediction. If Firefox and Chrome are blocking basically identical numbers of trackers/ads, that doesn't count as a successful prediction. I'm not going to be pedantic about, "Chrome randomly saw one more ad on exactly one website." Right now, I consider Chrome and Firefox to be equal in terms of adblocking capabilities. So even a 50% guess would be saying, "there's a one-in-two chance that something changes and Firefox will just be an objectively better browser for adblocking."
If you asked me to make a bet on whether Firefox would be meaningfully better than Chrome on, like, SSL support, I would give that a pretty low probability -- maybe 10% off the top of my head. Because I expect that a year from now nothing drastic is going to happen that would magically make either browser be different from each other on that front.
It's not 50% "one of the two things will happen, flip a coin", it's 50% "we will see a meaningful change from the status quo."
The replacement API is incompatible with what it is replacing. The supposed gain in performance is not without loss in ability to block ads.
> ad blocking extensions won't disappear. May be some will, and new extensions emerge.
Some kinds of ad-blocking is simply impossible in the new API, without replacement or workaround. No extension can implement those methods.
once they're in total control of how the blockers can operate: I doubt they'll be responsive to what the developers of the blocking extensions want...
This is how a company implements measures that could be a legal problem: By formally making a technical decision and having the actual goal as a by-product of that decision.
It's funny because for years MS kept officially supported, feature complete, portable format for use in interchange, while DOC being shared was kinda unintended consequence that just wasn't fought against.
The very requirements of the original DOC spec required it to be a memory dump.
So they say. I see literally no reason to believe that claim, though.
Clearly an unpopular opinion here, but anyway: I'm happy to let a few ads slip through (which I will happily ignore anyhow) in exchange for the possibility of a future where I dont have to drive a car to get places.
Ads are funding the Internet only because it's the easiest legal business model to pull off, so everyone gravitated to it. But it's not like there wouldn't be money for self-driving cars without adtech, and in reality, them being tied with advertising companies only ensures that the future will be shitty.
I'm convinced that in a world where collecting anonymous micropayments was as easy as serving ads, the web would look at lot different.
People look at this as a choice between paying $5 a month for every website they visit, or getting it "free" with ads. But in a world with good micropayments, most websites wouldn't cost $5. Outside of the biggest players, most sites aren't currently making $5 a month per user via ads.
But should that mean letting the fox guard the henhouse though? The problem here is that the largest ad provider also controls the largest ad display platform (i.e., Chrome), and is using the latter to benefit the former.
I want to get back to the content-driven web rather than this ad-driven web we have now. I want to read what people want to share, not what people think will get them ad clicks.
Google has a stranglehold on the entire browser market through Chromium right now. Switching to non-Chromium-based browsers is a must.
A fork implies maintaining most or all of the code base themselves, when in reality, most Chromium derivatives simply change the “front-end” or the UI while keeping everything else upstream, except for a few tweaks here and there. To maintain an entire fork themselves would be a massive undertaking, especially since Google now has a practical stronghold on the development of the open web. “Forks” would have to ensure they work with the standards (and non-standards) that are being pushed by Chromium and there’s no easy way to do that besides using Chromium and “re-building” it with their broswer’s specific features and UI. Google could make Manifest V3 harder to exclude from those re-builds.
It’s this very reason that Microsoft moved to Chromium as they could not keep up with the changes Chromium were pushing to the open web. They have also made it very clear that they’re not “forking” Chromium for the new Edge, but rather using it as their “back-end” so they can focus on their “front-end” while contributing back upstream to improve the back-end. Too much of a divergence would land them back to square one with the issues they had keeping up with old Edge.
If a company the size of Microsoft are unable to maintain a “fork” of Chromium, it doesn’t leave much hope for the smaller companies like Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, etc. However, that does not mean that they are unable to exclude the Manifest V3 from their builds, just that they’re still beholden to the changes made to Chromium to some degree.
Microsoft is entirely able to maintain a fork of Chromium, or even their own proprietary browser.
What Microsoft has done is a cost/benefit calculation and decided that the benefit for maintaining their own stuff is not sufficient to justify the costs.
The thing about those types of analyses is that they are very company-dependent. That the C/B ratio is not good enough for Microsoft doesn't imply that it can't be good enough for other companies.
I would love a citation for that.
Are you prepared to pay for it?
Many people love sharing stuff. The move to this ad-driven web happened because companies saw they could make money here. I'm totally fine with companies not making money and the web being driven by scientists and hobbyists.
Sure. We're all paying for it anyway -- the only question is what currency we're paying with. I'd much prefer the currency be cash rather than data.
I remember early 2000's, late 1990's internet...it was truly better times. Simplicity ruled, content ruled, not design solely around selling clicks.
Using a ad-blocker in Firefox was the #1 thing I suggested for safe computing. And don't open unexpected email attachments. This killed 95% of peoples computer woes.
So good job Google, you did it, from here on out whenever I see Chrome on families computers I will strong-arm them into switching to Firefox. I did it in 2005 and was wildly successful. I can do it again. And I think my Christmas gifts this year will be domain names and three year subscriptions to Fastmail for my immediate family.
Set it as default
Change path on desktop shortcut for "Internet" to FF
And ofc do not forget to say that is new IE version
You don't have to explain what firefox is, or what IE is, just that "this isn't IE but it does the same thing and will keep you safe".
Maybe they'll have follow up questions, and you can answer those, but lying is just a good way for them to go back to IE and not tell you because they don't to be treated condescendingly.
That's just plain dumb. Explain to your users what you are doing. You seem to think they are stupid, well they are not.
However, as programmers, we should see the internet not as a browser at all. We should see it as a list of protocols and implementations thereof.
I think a big part of the oh-so-common emotional social media battles is anticipation of the other person's experience. Hopefully for you, as a programmer reading this, your view of the internet is protected by automated command line scripts that fight your internet battles for you...
Of course, we all know the original Turboencabulator is GE and all the others are knockoffs, but I've tried other brands and they work just as well, if not even better.
I understand the grandparent point, but their analogy is terrible. When you are paying for a specific brand of item and you get an alternative brand without being informed and giving consent, that is fraud. It is a crime, and it is effectively stealing from you the difference in price/value/cost of the two items, since you're paying for the other brand.
Even the original vehicle manufacturer might purchase the parts from several of them.
You, as an typical end-user, have practically no chance to find out, whether the replacement part is "original" or not.
And by the way, smart ones already had FF and Opera installed
The first Google scam - yes scam - was Adsense and adwords. The search "sponsored" box was a yellow designed to be near indistinguishable from white, and was invisible on many LCD monitors. Adsense and adword links were the same blue IE used for links - because people had been conditioned to believe blue links simply traversed the web.
With hindsight, that's the moment everyone should have lost all trust in Google.
They do have the advantage of covering your entire LAN and working inside apps, so they are definitely useful. But they don't replace real adblockers, or even the castrated ones Google is pushing on its users.
I have no issues with my Sonos equipment - I use a local MP3 library, a Spotify subscription and TuneIn Radio all without any issues.
What problems did you have?
I hope no one here is surprised by this G was more and more anti ad-blocking for years now.
This is only natural conclusion after u are a de-facto browser monopoly.
See this FAQ:
Note how they say: "We have no immediate plans to remove blocking webRequest and are working with add-on developers to gain a better understanding of how they use the APIs in question to help determine how to best support them."
"No immediate plans" is weasel-speak, as is "[we] are working with add-on developers".
If Mozilla was dead sure that they weren't going ahead with it, they would say so, unequivocally. And I remind you that Mozilla "worked with add-on developers" when they unilaterally decided to drop XUL and go ahead with web extensions, while failing to include support for APIs that developers said they needed to support functionality that their add-ons provided.
IMHO, adoption of manifest v3 is not a matter of "if" but rather "when".
As far as organization Mozilla have my trust and I don't look for false bottoms in their statements.
I would point out the previous statement they made there:
> Firefox is not, however, obligated to implement every part of v3, and our WebExtensions API already departs in several areas under v2 where we think it makes sense.
I trust Mozilla to be on my side as customer than ad industry. Well, we will see what future brings.
"Fair warning: I don't speak for Mozilla. Everything I say here is a recording of my memories from that event. Nothing more. Nothing less."
(and yes, I noticed that the second "someone" is Mozilla's "Add-ons Policy Policer, Thunderbird Council Chair", but my point still stands: this is something "someone" said, not Mozilla's official position)
The question is whether Mozilla _removes_ support for webRequest like Google did. And you're right, they weaseled their way out of answering that question.
No AI, that's just a car, not a taxi.
But who cares, I just click anyway and feed bullshit in and in a few years it'll think everything is a taxi.
The idea behind the "I am not a robot" captcha is that if you act like a human, then you don't need to be shown pictures for further confirmation. The more you allow tracking, the more info they have to figure it out.
A big one is being logged in to your Google account. Having access to all your history really helps. And because Chrome heavily encourage you to setup a Google account, Chrome users are more likely to be logged in than Firefox (or other) users.
Spoofing your user-agent is likely to be worse. If you have a Chrome user-agent but your browser don't act like Chrome, that's a big red flag. Bots often spoof their user agents.
... and (probably?) the world's largest ad broker.
>“Firefox Software Update.app” can’t be opened because Apple cannot check it for malicious software.
Google has officially reached 90s MS levels
- lots of developers not caring at all
- businesses being businesses caring that we don't spend time on it
- ordinary people not caring even when the alternative is in another league
We got some work ahead. Hopefully Mozilla won't mess up too much during the next few months/years and then we might pull it off again.
And feel free to reuse the hashtag above : )
There’s nothing particularly inevitable about what happens next, but let’s hope they get an IE6-sized kick in the teeth.
Turns out "Don't be Evil" was more than just a feel-good marketing slogan. It may have actually been good for business as well.
Bye bye Google. It really has been great!
More like since 2014.
I use google search for one thing only these days: product search, when I'm trying to find a local dealer for a product.
For everything else, duckduckgo, which, to be completely honest, is a lot more like the old google from the early 2000s, than the current google.
I do remember remarking to somebody around this time that google search had become something of a glorified grep.
You could still get things though. What I meant in this comment is that it has gotten even worse to the point that its almost unusable. It really does remind me of Microsoft of the 00’s.
Google knows I land on StackOverflow results so often that SO results appear near the top, if not the #1 result, for terms that often have nothing to do with programming or computers. I was recently looking for an online thesaurus service and Google showed me an SO post about building linguistic/semantic search algorithms. Hmmm.
But sometimes I dream about building my own search engine. It would avoid the big ad-driven sites as much as possible, and give preferential treatment to obscure blog posts about topics nobody else has written about. I want a search result to show the many different ways it could be interpreted, rather than assume one of them based on whatever heuristic, and show me tons of identical results that aren't what I want.
Now my last visit to Google is more than a year ago because DDG got better while Google got worse.
I noticed this since around 3-4 years ago.
It seems to be based on region.
Quotes get ignored. Even very specific queries about X prioritize clickbait junk like "TOP 10 X!!"
I THINK they might be anti-competitive too; searching for particular Apple APIs is sometimes more miss than hit, though that might be because of Apple's own poor documentation.
However, most Apple-related searches used to show me Samsung crap, and that's definitely not benign. Like searching for "iPhone" literally presented an ad for the Samsung Galaxy at the top, for a while.
That's how ads work. If Samsung pays more money than Apple to show ads to people searching for "iPhone", then people will see Samsung ads.
i.e. if Samsung was shoving itself into the searches for all non-Apple phones?
as in: people will continue to suffer for about a decade while good alternatives readily spring up but suffer slow adoption?
I think it's likely to be a while before any political party other than the Democrats and the Republicans holds a lot of power in the US.
For example, it takes a lot of effort and energy for me to explain to non-technical people that comparing Apple and Google in terms of their mobile devices is non-sense. Just look at their regular financial reports, I usually say, and understand that one is an online advertisement business, while the other is a purely software + device business. One wants you to use their devices at all costs, while the other wants you to buy them. Those are very different core business models, different mentality and approaches. Etc etc. And so the choice between them comes down not even to taste or quality or price; it comes down to which business model you sell your soul to.
And then there's ad blockers and understanding how modern internet works etc. It worries me that the disconnect between those who understand the inner workings of tech and those who don't becomes bigger and bigger by the day. As the tech business itself becomes more and more sophisticated (and monopolist/authoritarian).
It’s not just tech savvy people. I imagine plenty of people here have set one up for their family members.
I won't be using Chrome anymore once they implement this since I like my element-hiding rules which I wrote myself, but for the common rabble, Manifest v3 will be an improvement.
I think the same thing that happened with popup blockers will happen again. Advertisers will be forced to listen to the consumers and the internet will be better for it.
Have you turned off your popup blocker recently? You can surf around even to fairly sketchy sites, and I bet you won't see a pop up. The consumer won. With tracking, we'll win again.
A proxy that wants to do this before the browser will need to do a lot more work I think?
BTW I can see that you are French ^^
And we are the ones that makes suggestions. And end users then make same suggestions to other people.
Word of mouth I believe is a VERY important marketing tool.
Basically if Chrome looses people that brought them market share in the first place... I think market can shift. Not that it happens fast enough. But having some market share for Firefox is important.
Chrome used to be the underdog.
It isn't? It seems trivial to me -- what are the friction points?
If you are technical, it's still a pain to get everything imported and set back up, and the extensions you're used to may be absent or done in different ways, and the subtleties of eg: incognito mode and reader mode may be different. You may have to re-construct your personal adblock rules. And so on.
What matters to me is the part I can't influence that easily, and I simply prefer Firefox because it's not based on Chrome. Not something many browser developers can say nowadays.
I say this as someone who uses 99% Firefox, 1% Chrome... I had never thought about this point I'm making before.
I'm always confused when people imply this isn't the case or start demanding evidence. I'm bemused when they are surprised.
I've never been a Chrome user, and I honestly don't remember ever hitting a website in the last 10 years or so that didn't work for me.
In Netscape/ie times WWW was other than nowadays, so your analogy is not correct
So I’ve been a bit ahead of the crowd and gave up on Chrome long ago.
This ad block scandal made me give up on Safari too though. Firefox seems to be the only reasonable option left.
Is this true? That's a complete showstopper for me.
In any case, how do they dare disable my power management for something I didn't start myself?