120

Youtube seems to be blocking access to a seriously large amount of publicly listed videos (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) by Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I dont know what to think, really.

The Dekaif channel has 434 videos, but YouTube is only showing 275 to clients, whether logged in or not, whether yt-dlp or official access.

This isn't the first channel I've witnessed this, and weirder stuff, on. Another example is this video - "Belt" meme - it is accessible on Grayjay, yet not on YouTube, meaning (I think) that publicly shared videos are being deindexed, and yet they are still hosted.

You used to be able to take the video code from the URL (everything after '?v=' and before '&') and get the exact video in search results. Not now. The second YouTuber, Sparky, has 35 uploads, only 9 of which are visible. And I can attest that at least one of the remaining 26 is hosted, but invisible. I don't even know how it came up using Grayjay but not YouTube or Revanced.

Basically, there's a TON of shady underhanded shit happening at YTHQ and everyone needs to jump ship to Odysee, Peertube or some platform that won't be clogged with AI. This is bad for everyone.

I'm posting it here mainly because I verified my findings with yt-dlp, and this new bs is successfully thwarting my attempts to archive.

3rd Oct edit: I am seeing massive differences in indexed videos versus archived videos. I am currently aggregating but the definitely affected videos range from 10% to 50%

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 28 points 1 day ago

Youtube seems to be blocking access to a seriously large amount of publicly listed videos

Creators can choose whether their videos should be accessible and whether they should be listed anywhere. Which you don't seem to have ruled out being the case here. So I'd say you're jumping the gun here.

I have seen channels which delisted (and later privated entirely) almost all their videos for legitimate reasons, so it's certainly possible.

And I can attest that at least one of the remaining 26 is hosted, but invisible.

This one is almost certainly just delisted.

everyone needs to jump ship to Odysee

The fediverse has its own video platform (peertube).

[-] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 19 hours ago

the last time i looked at peertube it was 100% alt-right conspiracy slop. has that changed?

[-] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 hours ago

I didn't see anything like that last time I was on peertube.wtf

Like any other fediverse thing, the instance you use makes a difference.

[-] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

PeerTube is a hard sell. Finding things to watch on there is a pain since most instances are trash. Only ones I can think of that are worth using are diode.zone and tilvids. Tilvids is nice but a lot of their material is uploaded from YouTube and the sponsorships are still embedded. If Sponsorblock was configured to work with it though it would be interesting.

[-] DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

You can always roll your own instance if you have the hardware to spare. I don't recommend hosting on a VPS as that defeats the purpose of self-hosting as you're hosting on someone else's computer at the end of the day and that's no different to signing up for an existing public instance and posting there.

[-] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 8 points 20 hours ago

I'm talking from a viewer's perspective. There is very little I can watch on PeerTube. Now, if I wanted to share videos on the internet as a hobby PeerTube would be the obvious choice. But as a platform to spend time in, it falls short.

It's not PeerTube's fault, it's just sadly Google can walk all over YouTubers all year long and they wouldn't even consider publishing on multiple platforms. It's quite telling that only YouTube competetor that got any traction at all is one with a video library mirroring tool so that the channel owner never has to touch it.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago

Unless you've got Google/Alphabet money, and a willingness to be in the red for years before maybe becoming profitable, it's essentially impossible to create a platform like YouTube.

[-] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

I think it is possible, either by charging money, or by decentralizing like PeerTube. The thing is, it doesn't matter. YouTubers won't switch, they just don't care.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 31 points 1 day ago

Not sure these channels even are (they look like slop vids) , but YouTube is supposed to be taking the ban hammer to low effort and slop videos starting this month. A little housekeeping will be greatly appreciated, as the slop/low effort/"look at me bro!" videos have gotten out of hand.

[-] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 1 day ago

But they're probably going to backpedal from that soon too since they're now allowing misinformed and blatant lying kinds of videos that play a bias.

So if they're doing that, they're going to allow low-effort/slop videos too, even after this.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 16 hours ago

Low effort/slop videos are different than your right-wing mis/disinformation, conspiracy theory, white supremacy videos though. By all the platforms giving Trump back his accounts they have said they are OK with those again, it's just the low effort/slop they care about. However, if those circles cross, I'm sure AI slop spreading hate would be now OK.

[-] Fyrnyx@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 1 day ago

Google has successfully broken YouTube.

You can't view YouTube videos anymore when shared without having to verify you're not a bot. You can't go a few moments without a video hiccuping itself when you leave it idle. You can't view some videos without a premium subscription. You can't view videos without age verification and good luck when there will be times that verification check somehow breaks.

Like, good job, assholes.

[-] DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

You also can't download them without JS, most alt front-ends are broken, and Google is pushing their own AI slop now.

How long before Widevine enters the picture and alt front-ends and downloaders are killed off entirely, you're forced to watch YT only through the official client on approved software/hardware if you want full quality (like Netflix), and even competing platforms are stamped out by the ability to mirror YT content over being taken away by that DRM if it's actually implemented?

I also wouldn't be surprised if Google straight-up made YT a paid service that you had to have Android-dev-style verification to create anything on, successfully turning it into the Netflix clone they so desperately want it to be.

[-] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 4 points 21 hours ago

This is exactly why we should be letting those who upload to youtube know that peertube exists and how to use it!

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 18 hours ago

Precisely. I know some creators (Sam Time, Legal Eagle) that dual upload to Odysee as a failsafe for YouTube's inevitable censorship, and Odysee being a decentralised space that prioritises freedom of speech means I see it as a good alternative, or stepping stone to Peertube.

Back in the day creators had their own blog websites for folk to access and subscribe. I believe this fragmentation is the best solution when aggregating sites like YouTube and Dailymotion become hostile.

[-] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 3 points 17 hours ago

Sadly Odysee being a place for freedom of speech in practise just means more hate speech, bigotry and fascism which is why we will never recommend it over peertube which is well moderated by actual people.

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

True. I appreciate the call for free speech, but ever since the hateful have upped their public image significantly I learned that minimal tolerance moderation of said hateful folk would make for a much healthier society. I've also heard Odysee has been filling up with AI slop. Maybe there should be a dedicated switch for the user to decide if they want to see AI gen content. If we can't stop them, we can ignore them and close the door

[-] annoyinglyfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

youtube fucking sucks now. Seriously. All i ever used it for was NEWS/POLITICS and HISTORY/RELIGION and it asked me for my id. The only childish thing i can even imagine it flagged was frogger overwatch. Now, as im downloading stuff, a bunch of the political content i like is 'unavailable' and near impossible to download. Join peertub. Please.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

You’re certain that these videos haven’t been unlisted by the uploader themselves, right?

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm not, but the sheer amount (nearly 50% in some cases) is suspicious. Save getting answers from the creators themselves, best I can do is keep collating data. Some of the affected channels' videos have no harmful content and millions of views per.. But I don't fully know yet.

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 17 points 1 day ago

Save getting answers from the creators themselves

Is there a reason you're not doing this? If I made income from you tube I'd want someone to draw my attention to this.

I'd think that a "hey, I noticed this weird thing, is that you delisting or is yt being shady?" type communication would be appreciated and help flesh out the picture.

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago

I am not an established researcher, so I believe I have no legacy to justify a response from busy folk. I was referring less to myself not reaching out, and more to the unlikelihood of any responses. I am absolutely messaging creators who I see have a significant disparity between published and indexed videos.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago

It doesn't hurt to try...

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Definitely shoot them some messages or emails. You deserve clarity on this, and so do they.

[-] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 day ago

YouTube is not doing good. I get flickering on Apple TV. On my Mac videos play without sound (computer isn’t muted) or they take way too long to load. Granted I don’t pay, but wow. Google is not doing so well.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 14 points 1 day ago

That sounds like it could be a codec issue, have not experienced any of that on my TV's or Linux boxes.

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I too see issues, but my clients are all some form of alternate app so I don't have a true baseline. On Grayjay some videos just stop loading halfway through, and I can't view it unless I switch to one of the other clients, and SmartTubeNext and YouTube with Sponsorblock both give me about a minute of black screen. NGL I prefer the black to unnecessarily invasive advertising

You shouldn't really have to pay, not when advertising is the way Google funds everything. Iirc advertising is 90% of their substantial income.

I am seeing more rules and system changes hurt creators, and more creators quit, complain about it, and/or actively recommend adblockers and Patreon donations.

[-] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 day ago

When you pay there is no advertising, except the damn “creators” putting their own midroll ads and merch/subscription begging in - which infuriates me.

[-] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago

SponsorBlock gets rid of most of the ads that the uploaders put in their videos.

[+] riskable@programming.dev -19 points 1 day ago

It's ok: Google and all other ad-supported search is about to go the way of the dinosaur as soon as local AI search catches on. When your own PC runs a search for you, it basically googles on your behalf and you never see those ads.

It's going to change everything.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Yeah, no thanks. I'll pass.

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago

It's not going to change everything. Why would you ever use an LLM for anything information related ever? I can make up wrong answers just as fast as it can.

I really hope that this is a joke and I'm making a fool of myself.

[-] riskable@programming.dev 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Google search: "scientific articles about (whatever)" Then you get tons of ads and irrelevant results.

LLM search: "Find me scientific articles about (whatever)" Then you get just the titles and links (with maybe a short summary).

It's 100% better and you don't have to worry about hallucinations since you it's wasn't actually trying to find an answer... Just helping you perform a search.

[-] Coopr8@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago

You're joking right? "making up answers" in the case of search results just means a dead link. If you get a good link 99% of the time and don't have to use an enshitified service, that's good enough for 99% of people. Try again is the worst case scenario.

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 17 hours ago

Finding search terms is the one task I consistently use LLMs for. They did not say that though, they said replacing traditional search with LLMs, that traditional search is about to "go the way of the dinosaur". I dont trust any local LLM to accurately recall anything it read.

Not to mention that once we gain dependence on LLMs, which is something big tech is trying really hard to achieve right now, it will not be all that difficult for the creators to introduce biases that give us many of the same problems as search engines. Product placement, political censorship, etc. There would not be billions of dollars in investment if they thought they weren't going to get anything out of it.

[-] Coopr8@kbin.earth 1 points 12 hours ago

(the best) Local LLMs are FOSS though, if bias is introduced it can be detected and the user base can shift away to another version, unlike centralized cloud LLMs that are private silos.

I also don't think LLMs of any kind will fully replace search engines, but I do think they will be one of a suite of ML tools that will enable running efficient local (or distributed) indexing and search of the web.

[-] fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

First of all, they are not FOSS. I know it seems tangential to the discussion, but it's important because biases cannot be reliably detected without the starting data. You should also not trust humans to see bias because humans themselves are quite biased and will generally assume that the LLM is behaving correctly if it aligns with their biases, which can be shifted in various ways over time, too.

Second, local LLMs don't have the benefit of free software where we can modify them freely or make forks if there are problems. Sure, there's fine tuning, but you don't get full control that way, and you need access to your own tuning data set. We would really just have the option to switch products, which doesn't put us much further ahead than using the closed off products available online.

I'm all for adding them to the arsenal of tools, but they are deceptively difficult to use correctly, which makes it so hard for me to be excited about them. I hardly see anyone using these tools for the purposes they are actually good for, and the things they are good for are also deceptively limited.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Someone would have to pay for the API calls though. And that tends to mean either pay a subscription or view ads. There's no technical reason your local LLM couldn't call a search engine's API to give you an ad-free search experience, and in fact you don't need an LLM to run a local ad-free search frontend. But there is a commercial reason, namely that whoever runs the search engine API will want payment. It would be some progress to have an ad-free search subscription, but it wouldn't get around all the megacorp fuckery that decides what search results you get.

[-] gravitywell@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

APIs are the compromise that sites have to make if they dont want the much more reasource heavy scrapping methods used.

The most they could do is rate limit IP addresses, and that doesbt work too well when jts individual users who can just request a new IP any time

[-] Coopr8@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day ago

Not to mention that the scraped indexes can and should be shared. Unfortunately what OP is seeing may be a move to thwart this type of brute force scraping, and might resolve as dynamically assigned domain addresses, where the URL of a set object is temporarily assigned and streamed only to a single or group of IP addresses that request it within a given timeframe before being rotated out until found in search again and then reassigned a new URL, etc. This is a frankly stupid use of resources, but can effectively be used to prevent crowdsourced indexes from proliferating, and to punish IPs or even MAC addresses or browser fingerprints associated with downloading and reuploading videos which almost certainly have stegnographic fingerprinting embedded that associate with who the video was served up to at the time it was downloaded.

[-] Coopr8@kbin.earth 5 points 1 day ago

Also, you know what would make this all even worse? Laws requiring that people prove their identity in order to consume content or pull videos... just like age verification laws now being passed in several countries. What a coincidence.

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

I agree with local search, but I prefer more of a traditional algorithm-based search to generative AI. A solution I've seen (that is far more attainable than building your own search engine) is hosting a metasearch engine, which collates results from search engines, based on your own preferences of results. Or perhaps using someone else's established server if their preferences align with yours. Localised (on-device) search will be a gamechanger in many ways, but I believe a meaningful version of that is far off and potentially impractical to implement.