this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
546 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59346 readers
6925 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sooo..., you'll literally need to use adblocker to use YouTube. Interesting.
It really is given that they've willingly entered a game of cat and mouse and chosen to assume the role of a blind, limbless mouse.
As others have said before me, I feel for the poor engineers who have to implement this stuff as any technical solution short of DRM is provably impractical and unworkable.
Don’t give them ideas.
They already have plans to DRM the entire fucking web. That's why I am currently cutting google out of my life step by step.
Yeah, YT is the last holdout for me. It’s literally the only Google service I willingly sign up for. I’ve tried Piped/Invidious, but they don’t match YTs quality.
No problem, quality will continue to degrade, until you will be happy to switch.
Yeah the lack of playlists is an issue
So, give me a heads up if you find a reliably working alternative for their FCM that enables common apps to ... work, e.g. mobile payment (not crypto), alarm messaging for emergency forces, e.g. firefighters. I'd say one can easily step back from google if you rely on independent apps and services (done that for a couple of years). But without FCM some shit simply doesn't work.
They're way ahead of you, they already started implementing it in Chrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
It’s bullshit like this that made me give up all Chromium browsers earlier this year. I used to be a complete Google simp, but those days are well behind me. They’re motto these days might as well be “Do evil.”
I went from loving Google (had the HYC Dream, the first Android phone!)
Many years ago I cut em out. Now I have no google products and do not use their services.
I also had the HTC Dream (called the TMobile G1 in the US). Only google product I haven’t been able to ditch is gmail.
I'm not sure what you mean by "short of DRM", because YouTube already does what it can to prevent unauthorised clients accessing it. (Have you seen how unreliable "YouTube downloaders" can be, especially for very long videos or in resolutions above HD?) But ultimately the flaw in any DRM-style solution is that the end result still needs to be able to be played back on client-controlled systems, and that is always going to provide an avenue for exploitation. It can't be avoided.
I use an automated YouTube downloader as part of my media lab and have had a 100% success rate for downloads over several years, so, sincerely, I don't know what you mean.
And yes, my argument wasn't that DRM is flawless, just that it's a feasible next step in Google trying to achieve their purpose.
I don't. They had every opportunity to do the ethical thing and refuse to implement it, but didn't.
On a related note, the industry norms need to be changed such that software engineers should be licensed Professional Engineers, should be unionized, or both.
(I say this as a software engineer myself, by the way.)
I also work in industry as a software engineer, tech lead, and occasional eng manager and haven't seen anyone do this over several decades.
I don't think many people, software engineers included, are troubled by YouTube wanting to monetize their platform or defending their right to do so. It's opting for such an easily bypassed method that makes this such a chore for the implementor.
It's also bold to assume they might not have suggested, prototyped or specced other solutions to this problem but were still tasked with this one for whatever reason. Either way, I'd rather assume good intent and high locus than assume they are "trapped" in to implementing software that defies their own moral beliefs.
Oh, that's why WebDRM.
DRM isn't effective on its own, it needs law with severe punishment to survive