On 8/30/2023 5:56 PM, candycane wrote:

> https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban

Thanks for that article, which starts off with this quote.
"Youtube-dl site no longer loads & cannot even be accessed using a VPN"

Two things potentially confusing with that quote are that Stan Brown (and
the rest of us) know that the youtube-dl.exe has been long deprecated.

And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.

Another sentence which seems to explain what's going on is this one.
"Despite GitHub being the platform hosting the open-source YouTube
downloader, Uberspace was held legally liable because it linked
to the developer platform."

So it seems, perhaps, a rogue site (which is what's been taken down) was
calling the (long deprecated) youtube-dl.exe (presumably from GitHub).

As Stan Brown said, the executable currently used is 'yt-dlp.exe' and not
'youtube-dl.exe' which, as far as anyone knows, uses legal public api's.

Another problem with the author's interpretation of the situation in that
article is this sentence, which to me, means the author is not technical.
"At the time of writing, the website doesn't load and cannot be accessed
not even by using a VPN service."

Maybe a VPN is more magical than I thought it was, but unlike onion sites,
if you can't access a domain without a VPN, you're not going to access it
with a VPN (unless it's georestricted - which isn't mentioned as the case).

The article describes the history, which seems to be listed as this
a. In 2020 this RIAA takedown notice was directed at GitHub
<https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-takes-down-popular-open-source-youtube-dl-software-201024/>

b. Then GitHub restored the repository with necessary changes being made.
<https://www.techradar.com/news/github-reinstates-popular-youtube-downloader-project>

c. And GitHub made a legal case for having restored the repository.
<https://www.eff.org/document/eff-letter-github-youtube-dl-takedown>

d. The EFF lawyers made pertinent arguments in favor of youtube-dl.exe.
"First, youtube-dl does not infringe or encourage the
infringement of any copyrighted works..."

"Second, youtube-dl does not violate Section 1201 of the DMCA
because it does not "circumvent" any technical protection
measures on YouTube videos."

"Importantly, youtube-dl does not decrypt video streams that are
encrypted with commercial DRM technologies, such as Widevine,
that are used by subscription video sites, such as Netflix."

Still, none of this seems to be about 'yt-dlp.exe', which is what has long
ago superseded the deprecated 'youtube.dl.exe' executable as far as I know.

"Larry Wolff" <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote

| And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
| whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.
|

It's a legit site that had been operating but outdated for
a long time. I don't know about the case. Maybe it's a case
from 3 years ago that finally got a ruling. Maybe the RIAA are
going after whoever they can, as a PR move. Microsoft now
owns github, so that connection won't be so easy to block.

I never got yt-dlp working properly. I had to keep restarting
it. Recently I found 3dyd, thanks to someone in these groups,
and it even works on my XP box. Now, that's software! :)

3dyd seems to fail with at least some music, so maybe they're
trying to work with the RIAA. Which is fine with me. I'm not
generally interested in Taylor Swift's latest bubble-gum-pop.
I'm usually looking for academic lectures, car repair videos, and
the like. On the other hand, why would the RIAA go after youtube
downloaders, rather than Google? Why do they allow music on
a publicly accesible website at all? Why not issue takedown
orders to Google?

It's possible that the RIAA are in bed with Google,
on a PR campaign to do battle against basic http protocols.
There's a general move to turn the Internet into a subscription
service for interactive cable TV and services. That's at odds with
the original design and intention of the Internet as an open,
transparent communications medium. If the Hamburg ruling is
legit it implies that their courts have been duped into believing
that "difficult access" to a webpage or online file constitutes
a purchase contract. That could clear the way for news sites,
for example, who claim no one has a right to load their webpages
without also being sent to a half dozen ad/spying domains and allowing
the news website to control their browser via script.

As it stands now, many of the popular sites I visit don't work
without script. They cover the page with an opaque DIV. They bury
the page text in javascript. Crazy stuff. It used to be that the idea
was to make pages work in any browser. That's now reversed: Use
the latest Chrome, enable script and turn off ad blockers, or we'll
stop you accessing content.

The other day I was reading an article at Atlantic. I don't normally
allow script. Atlantic works fine, except that their pages are designed
for cellphones, so I need to either read giant, serif text or turn off CSS.
With both JS and CSS disabled I get an ugly but very readable webpage.
A friend was having trouble getting the full article, so I revisited with
script enabled. I got a page with a picture of 2 hardhat workers that
said they're having problems! I toggled JS on and off, cconfirming that
this was a lying webpage intended to block visitors without admitting
that they're doing so. Crazy. I'm guessing that JS allowed them
to figure out that not all files/ads were being loaded, probably due
to my HOSTS file. (I don't actually use an ad blocker.) So they sent
me a "broken page" page instead. And it's not a 404. Someone actually
designed the page and illustration and they're swapping it in at that
URL.

With rulings that claim it's illegal to download a file in one piece
from a publicly accessible server, we're one step closer to making
http a closed protocol and having a legal basis to make web browsers
conform to a DRM model, with no settings, no saving of pages, and no
ability to view source code. Restriction via hassle could become
legal precedent.

candycane <candycane@f172.n1.z21.fsxnet> wrote

> Yes, but it's a bit worrying they are starting to take legal action..

As long as the third-party downloaders use public APIs, they may be sued,
but as we saw even in the case of the deprecated youtube-dl.exe, the law
will prevail on the side of the downloaders which use only public APIs.

NewPipe:
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/releases/
https://newpipe.net/

ClipGrab:
https://clipgrab.org/
https://download.clipgrab.org/clipgrab-3.9.7-portable.exe

yt-dlp:
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/releases/latest
https://ffmpeg.org/download.html

In terms of lawsuits, I think the industry is more about getting clickbait
in the news than it cares about successful lawsuits in the US courts.

For example, despite the news about torrenting movies, there has never in
the history of the United States ever been a successful movie torrenting
case (Malibu excepted, as the lawyers were disbarred after it was revealed
they seeded them themselves!) that was contested by the defendants (plenty
defendants gave in though and paid the thirty to hundred dollar requested
fee to drop the cases).

Think about that.

Other than the one Malibu case (where the lawyers were eventually
disbarred), there has NEVER been a successful contested US torrent case.

There are legal reasons for that fact - which most people don't understand
- but they can understand that there has never been a single success in
court - but you have to understand copyright law to understand why.

On 8/31/2023 9:03 AM, Newyana2 wrote:

>| And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
>| whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.
>|
>
> It's a legit site that had been operating but outdated for
> a long time. I don't know about the case. Maybe it's a case
> from 3 years ago that finally got a ruling. Maybe the RIAA are
> going after whoever they can, as a PR move. Microsoft now
> owns github, so that connection won't be so easy to block.

I didn't know M$ owns GitHub, which, well, maybe that's not a good thing.
But I do agree with you that the RIAA cares more about PR than about law.

The more people the RIAA can scare, the more they can claim success.
> I never got yt-dlp working properly. I had to keep restarting
> it. Recently I found 3dyd, thanks to someone in these groups,
> and it even works on my XP box. Now, that's software! :)

Thank you for suggesting 3dyd, which I had never heard of until now.
https://www.3dyd.com/
https://yd.3dyd.com/download/

It seems to be updated frequently and even seems to have a batch option.
https://www.videohelp.com/software?d=3dyd_1.19.1.exe
https://www.videohelp.com/software?d=3dyd_batch_2.11.exe

https://download.yd.3dyd.com/3dyd64_1.20.exe
Name: 3dyd64_1.20.exe
Size: 20226239 bytes (19 MiB)
SHA256: 05ADEEED0106AF971275698C27E5A4DB20585380047D11613F5C875E4C1CC2FC

https://download.yd.3dyd.com/3dyd32_1.20.exe
Name: 3dyd32_1.20.exe
Size: 18335077 bytes (17 MiB)
SHA256: F1A4659C0F1A5E5C52AAE574222E3DA596BF8F051E1781AC3BEFB4ED8DB447CA

> 3dyd seems to fail with at least some music, so maybe they're
> trying to work with the RIAA. Which is fine with me.

As you noted, all of the youtube downloaders suffer when Google does
"something" that breaks them, whether it's ClipGrab/yt-dlp or NewPipe.

I found those GUIs worked well but they must be updated often.

I suspect Google, who has all the source code, makes minor changes on
purpose to slow down their efforts - even as they all use public APIs.

> I'm not
> generally interested in Taylor Swift's latest bubble-gum-pop.
> I'm usually looking for academic lectures, car repair videos, and
> the like. On the other hand, why would the RIAA go after youtube
> downloaders, rather than Google? Why do they allow music on
> a publicly accesible website at all? Why not issue takedown
> orders to Google?

Like you, I download documentaries and repair videos, both of which I can
watch when I'm far away from my home Wi-Fi or waiting in a waiting room.

I think the RIAA just wants to get in the news to scare people who don't
understand that all these downloaders use the API that any web site does.

> It's possible that the RIAA are in bed with Google,
> on a PR campaign to do battle against basic http protocols.

I don't know if Google is "in bed" with the RIAA but Apple certainly is.
Which is why every operating system (other than iOS) allows these GUIs.

> There's a general move to turn the Internet into a subscription
> service for interactive cable TV and services.

Yup. You're on the ball. Subscriptions equate to easily forcasted profits.

I, for one (probably like you) don't have a single Internet subscription.

And yet I can rather easily get anything I want that is on the Internet.
So that's my personal proof that subscriptions aren't needed.

For example, can you think of anything that you get by subscription on
YouTube that you can't get without that subscription - if you're smart?

> That's at odds with
> the original design and intention of the Internet as an open,
> transparent communications medium. If the Hamburg ruling is
> legit it implies that their courts have been duped into believing
> that "difficult access" to a webpage or online file constitutes
> a purchase contract. That could clear the way for news sites,
> for example, who claim no one has a right to load their webpages
> without also being sent to a half dozen ad/spying domains and allowing
> the news website to control their browser via script.

I must admit that recently, they've added the Epic Privacy Browser proxies
(which Epic calls a VPN) to the cloudflare "wait a minute" domain blocks.

So, one by one, little by little, domain by domain, I have to agree with
you that the Internet is becoming more & more a "difficult access" for us.

Still... with judicious use of thousands of free openvpn servers, most
sites can be "unblocked" from the cloudflare blockers - albeit with effort.

> As it stands now, many of the popular sites I visit don't work
> without script. They cover the page with an opaque DIV. They bury
> the page text in javascript. Crazy stuff. It used to be that the idea
> was to make pages work in any browser. That's now reversed: Use
> the latest Chrome, enable script and turn off ad blockers, or we'll
> stop you accessing content.

I must agree with you that javascript is de rigeuer for most websites,
which is why the Tor Browser often has trouble with those javascript sites.

Luckily a proxy-based web browser (such as the Opera VPN Browser - again,
not a VPN but a proxy) usually has that unnecessary 'crazy stuff' blocked.

Since you knew about 3dyd (which was new to me until you mentioned it), I
wonder if you know of any other Windows-based proxy-based privacy browser?

> The other day I was reading an article at Atlantic. I don't normally
> allow script. Atlantic works fine, except that their pages are designed
> for cellphones, so I need to either read giant, serif text or turn off CSS.
> With both JS and CSS disabled I get an ugly but very readable webpage.
> A friend was having trouble getting the full article, so I revisited with
> script enabled. I got a page with a picture of 2 hardhat workers that
> said they're having problems! I toggled JS on and off, cconfirming that
> this was a lying webpage intended to block visitors without admitting
> that they're doing so. Crazy. I'm guessing that JS allowed them
> to figure out that not all files/ads were being loaded, probably due
> to my HOSTS file. (I don't actually use an ad blocker.) So they sent
> me a "broken page" page instead. And it's not a 404. Someone actually
> designed the page and illustration and they're swapping it in at that
> URL.

Since I use proxy-based browsers almost exclusively, I've found out that
sites such as the NYT, Atlantic and Financial Times (among many others)
will let me in sometimes, and then suddenly won't let me back in again.

I suspect they have an IP count (e.g., three free articles per IP per day).
The solution, which seems to work for me, is to change the browser proxy.

But I do agree with you that they are all about blocking IPs, which is
where some of the useful domain blockers seem to work well such as
https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

Someday I'm going to install the Acrylic host blocker which uses wildcards!
https://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm

> With rulings that claim it's illegal to download a file in one piece
> from a publicly accessible server, we're one step closer to making
> http a closed protocol and having a legal basis to make web browsers
> conform to a DRM model, with no settings, no saving of pages, and no
> ability to view source code. Restriction via hassle could become
> legal precedent.

You're right about the "restriction via hassle" and the tendency of the
RIAA to prosecute doomed-to-fail legal cases simply for the PR it spawns.

Luckily, for our use, the free graphical youtube downloaders all work well
using only the public APIs that Google allows any normal browser to employ.

"Larry Wolff" <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote

| Thank you for suggesting 3dyd, which I had never heard of until now.

I hadn't either, despite looking around a number of times.
So often the good sstuff is unknown because people use
only what they've heard of.

| Since you knew about 3dyd (which was new to me until you mentioned it), I
| wonder if you know of any other Windows-based proxy-based privacy browser?
|

I don't know much about that, as I don't really care about
total anonymity. I just like to maintain privacy from sleazy
trackers. Recently I installed something. I think it was Proton.
Free VPN. I needed to use wifi in a hotel, so I wanted the extra
security. But I've never used a VPN service otherwise.

Most so-called private browsers are just pre-configured with
better settings. I once tried Iron, which was supposed to be
a totally private version of Chrome. It tried to call home. When
it couldn't do that it tried to call Google. So I use Mozillaa browsers,
because they're more controllable. I use NoScript and a HOSTS file.
I also toggle CSS more and more to deal with messed up sites.

|
| Since I use proxy-based browsers almost exclusively, I've found out that
| sites such as the NYT, Atlantic and Financial Times (among many others)
| will let me in sometimes, and then suddenly won't let me back in again.
|

In many cases they seem to require script in order to block
you out. I've never been blocked or restricted at NYT or Atlantic.
But each case is different. I was interested in articles that Bari
Weiss was writing (she quit the NYT in protest over their wokist
censorship). She and some friends seemed to be writing interesting
stuff on substack. But then they set up their own website at
https://www.thefp.com/ The Free Press, I think it stands for.
The articles provide a first paragraph and then require a
subscription. In that case the "read more" doesn't just point
to hidden content. It's actually some different URL which is only
accessed by subscription. So why don't I subscribe? Because I don't
know that it will be consistently worth reading. Bari Weiss seems
to have gone missing. And I don't like to give a credit card to an
online company. I don't see online subscription journalism being
a thing. It's too much of a privacy and security risk. And for the
most part I just don't find truly thoughtful writing. The Atlantic
is the most consistently interesting, but even then it's an
occasional thing.

| But I do agree with you that they are all about blocking IPs, which is
| where some of the useful domain blockers seem to work well such as
| https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
| | Someday I'm going to install the Acrylic host blocker which uses
wildcards!
| https://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm
|

I use both Acrylic and Unbound, on different machines. The latter
lacks documentation and is difficult to set up. But both have a
HOSTS option with wildcards. Very nice. I haven't seen ads to
speak of for decades, yet I probably have only about 300 entries
in HOSTS. The ad/spying/data collection industry is very centralized,
with Google/Doubleclick running most of it. I also block
google-analytics, google fonts, googletagmanager, etc. If
you don't put those things in HOSTS then you're being followed
everywhere. Facebook is also widespread.

It's very odd that so few people know about HOSTS and
yet it's arguably the easiest, most efficient privacy tool,
especially with a DNS resolver that provides wildcard entries.
But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
even if you never configure it.

On 8/31/23 5:02 PM, Newyana2 wrote:

> In many cases they seem to require script in order to block
> you out. I've never been blocked or restricted at NYT or Atlantic.

I put a javascript toggle on firefox and chrome, which seems to work for
some sites. Others work if you clear the cookies for that site. Some
normally-paywall stuff is free if linked from Drudge. If those don't
work, I probably don't want to read it anyway.

> But each case is different. I was interested in articles that Bari
> Weiss was writing (she quit the NYT in protest over their wokist
> censorship). She and some friends seemed to be writing interesting
> stuff on substack. But then they set up their own website at
> https://www.thefp.com/ The Free Press, I think it stands for.
> The articles provide a first paragraph and then require a
> subscription.

I subscribed (free) and can read most of what they send in email. Bari
writes every once in a while, but most of it's written by her wife,
whose name I can't remember. She's good too. Occasional others,
generally worth reading. The free Spectator stuff is generally worth
reading too.

> In that case the "read more" doesn't just point
> to hidden content. It's actually some different URL which is only
> accessed by subscription. So why don't I subscribe? Because I don't
> know that it will be consistently worth reading. Bari Weiss seems
> to have gone missing. And I don't like to give a credit card to an
> online company.

I stopped worrying about that long ago, at least for what seem to be
respectable companies. Citi will give you a virtual credit card number
with a daily limit and expieration date you set. I'd rather have had a
total amount, but this is OK. I used it to buy my Keepgo SIM.

A friend's trust account was drained by one of the trust company
employees who simply forged a signature. Took a year to restore the
account. Nothing is safe.

> I don't see online subscription journalism being
> a thing. It's too much of a privacy and security risk. And for the
> most part I just don't find truly thoughtful writing. The Atlantic
> is the most consistently interesting, but even then it's an
> occasional thing.

We really SHOULD pay for good journalism, especially since it's so damn
hard to find. My local fishwrap gives a $1/6 months promotion (online
only) every once in a while, and that's about what it's worth. How are
the mighty fallen etc. It used to be a GOOD paper back when the editor
was a really smart guy and took it seriously.

> | But I do agree with you that they are all about blocking IPs, which is
> | where some of the useful domain blockers seem to work well such as
> | https://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm
> |
> | Someday I'm going to install the Acrylic host blocker which uses
> wildcards!
> | https://mayakron.altervista.org/support/acrylic/Home.htm
> |
>
> I use both Acrylic and Unbound, on different machines. The latter
> lacks documentation and is difficult to set up. But both have a
> HOSTS option with wildcards. Very nice. I haven't seen ads to
> speak of for decades, yet I probably have only about 300 entries
> in HOSTS. The ad/spying/data collection industry is very centralized,
> with Google/Doubleclick running most of it. I also block
> google-analytics, google fonts, googletagmanager, etc. If
> you don't put those things in HOSTS then you're being followed
> everywhere. Facebook is also widespread.
>
> It's very odd that so few people know about HOSTS and
> yet it's arguably the easiest, most efficient privacy tool,
> especially with a DNS resolver that provides wildcard entries.

Those people don't understand command lines either. I downloaded mine
(10,700 entries including a small number I added) from one of the
recommended places (long ago, can't remember name).

> But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
> who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
> even if you never configure it.

What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
adblock plus. How could they NOT know?

--
Cheers, Bev
"We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has
to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil)

On 1 Sep 2023 at 12:05:59 AM, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
>> who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
>> even if you never configure it.
>
> What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
> adblock plus. How could they NOT know?

Since TheRealBev is also on Android, it's also amazing that people complain
about ads on Android & yet they don't know enough to use the FOSS NetGuard.
[https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/enable-netguards-hidden-ad-blocking-feature-your-android-phone-0176386/]

The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
[https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]

Note: You can't adblock if you install the NetGuard from the Google Play
Store repository - you have to use any non-Google-Play-Store repository.
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard]

This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the
Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
[https://netguard.me/]
--
Cheers, Quellen

Am 01.09.23 um 06:32 schrieb Quellen:
> This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the
> Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
> [https://netguard.me/]

*ROTFLSTC*

--
Alea iacta est

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 00:32:13 -0400, Quellen wrote:

> The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
> [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]

What I like about using Netguard on a non-rooted Android with the ad
blocking VPN set up with any good HOSTS file found on the net is that I can
install software that ostensibly is ad supported - but I don't see any ads!

Installing that free GitHub Netguard makes all free apps also ad-free apps.

[Windows newsgroups deleted}

On 8/31/23 9:32 PM, Quellen wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2023 at 12:05:59 AM, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> But I suppose that UBlock Origin is a good option for people
>>> who simply don't deal with tech. That will block a few things
>>> even if you never configure it.
>>
>> What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
>> adblock plus. How could they NOT know?
>
> Since TheRealBev is also on Android, it's also amazing that people complain
> about ads on Android & yet they don't know enough to use the FOSS NetGuard.
> [https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/enable-netguards-hidden-ad-blocking-feature-your-android-phone-0176386/]
>
> The NetGuard ad blocking works "like a hosts file" as explained here.
> [https://github.com/M66B/NetGuard/blob/master/ADBLOCKING.md]

Thanks, looks useful. I assume it also blocks the ads that are
included with ad-supported 'free' apps. I have adblock plus on firefox,
but I haven't tried to defeat the app-connected ads yet. Most of what I
do with the phone is take pictures and transfer them to my computer and
most of the time it's in airplane mode.

> Note: You can't adblock if you install the NetGuard from the Google Play
> Store repository - you have to use any non-Google-Play-Store repository.
> [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.faircode.netguard]
>
> This is another case where Android excels because you don't have to use the
> Google Play Store to install the best apps (many of which aren't on it).
> [https://netguard.me/]

--
Cheers, Bev
"A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
| | I put a javascript toggle on firefox and chrome, which seems to work for
| some sites. Others work if you clear the cookies for that site. Some
| normally-paywall stuff is free if linked from Drudge. If those don't
| work, I probably don't want to read it anyway.
|

That's also what I've found. I often end up dredging the source
code to see what's going on. Companies try different approaches.
Some javascript wizard comes up with a new trick and they all
try it.

|> And I don't like to give a credit card to an
| > online company.
| | I stopped worrying about that long ago, at least for what seem to be
| respectable companies. Citi will give you a virtual credit card number
| with a daily limit and expieration date you set. I'd rather have had a
| total amount, but this is OK. I used it to buy my Keepgo SIM.
| | A friend's trust account was drained by one of the trust company
| employees who simply forged a signature. Took a year to restore the
| account. Nothing is safe.
| For me there's both a privacy and security problem. No one
takes responsibility for their online-connected databases. They
sell personal data wholesale. The general digitizing of the
process is a big problem. We have a NYT subscription. (Not my idea.)
I sometimes find interesting articles and a newspaper is a nice
way to wake up my head in the morning. But online? Even though
I can have that subscription for free it's a spyware mess. They
want to monitor everything I read in order to customize ads and
probably to sell me out to data resellers -- even though I've
already paid for the paper. The paper doesn't have cameras
embedded in the page to check how long I look at the full
page ad of the listless jewelry company model. It has no way
to monitor when/where I read the paper. NYT actually design the
newspaper version now to be only a partial product despite the
high price: "Go online to read this exclusive story!" But the claim
of needing pargetted ads is merely a greed scam. Remember
Google's early search engine with contextual, text-based ads?
They were a massive success before they started spying.

I'm increasingly using cash and avoiding cards due to the
runaway spying. Everyone wants private info. The drugstore
wants me to join their club and donate to... what exactly? It's
nuts.

The other day I saw a piece at 404media.co, which I'd never
heard of. They were talking about how one can enter a credit
card number at the NYC subway website to get a record of
when/where that person got on the subway. Huh?! They describe
it as a service. They're maintaining records, enabled by the use
of electronic payment. What gives them that right? The article ended
with this interesting paragraph:

"404 Media found that MTA�s trip history feature still works even when the
user pays with Apple Pay. Apple told 404 Media it does not store or have
access to the used card numbers, and does not provide these to merchants,
including transit systems. Apple did not respond when asked to clarify how
the MTA website feature works when a rider uses Apple Pay."

| What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
| adblock plus. How could they NOT know?
| I've never used any adblocker. I've never needed to because
I block domains.
But I sympathize with the majority. It's just too complicated
to figure these things out, and it keeps getting worse.
Also, an increasing number of sites try to sniff out adblockers.

I depend on NoScript, but most people can't use it. It
just requires too much understanding of how the Internet
works. When a page doesn't work and there are 8 script
sources, ballooning to 14, how many of those do you need
to make the page work? It's out of control.

There was a brief time when it all made sense. ActiveX
and Java in webpages was being phased out. 10-15% of
people were blocking script. It was widely agreed that
any website using script shouldn't depend on it... Then Google
started with the targetted ads and designed their search
engine to prioritize commercial sites. It's been downhill since
then.

On 9/1/23 5:55 AM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

> |> And I don't like to give a credit card to an
> | > online company.
> |
> | I stopped worrying about that long ago, at least for what seem to be
> | respectable companies. Citi will give you a virtual credit card number
> | with a daily limit and expieration date you set. I'd rather have had a
> | total amount, but this is OK. I used it to buy my Keepgo SIM.
> |
> | A friend's trust account was drained by one of the trust company
> | employees who simply forged a signature. Took a year to restore the
> | account. Nothing is safe.
> |
> For me there's both a privacy and security problem. No one
> takes responsibility for their online-connected databases. They
> sell personal data wholesale. The general digitizing of the
> process is a big problem. We have a NYT subscription. (Not my idea.)
> I sometimes find interesting articles and a newspaper is a nice
> way to wake up my head in the morning. But online? Even though
> I can have that subscription for free it's a spyware mess. They
> want to monitor everything I read in order to customize ads and
> probably to sell me out to data resellers -- even though I've
> already paid for the paper. The paper doesn't have cameras
> embedded in the page to check how long I look at the full
> page ad of the listless jewelry company model.

I have a USB camera for my desktop, but it mostly doesn't work and is
pointing at the ceiling right now. Good luck to their AI at
interpreting the cobwebs.

> It has no way
> to monitor when/where I read the paper. NYT actually design the
> newspaper version now to be only a partial product despite the
> high price: "Go online to read this exclusive story!" But the claim
> of needing pargetted ads is merely a greed scam. Remember
> Google's early search engine with contextual, text-based ads?
> They were a massive success before they started spying.

Any effort anybody expends trying to sell me stuff is a total waste of
their resources. Not my problem. It might be interesting to know just
how they target ads at ME, but I'm not interested enough to turn off the
adblocker.

I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
firefox or before they hit my screen?

> I'm increasingly using cash and avoiding cards due to the
> runaway spying. Everyone wants private info. The drugstore
> wants me to join their club and donate to... what exactly? It's
> nuts.
>
> The other day I saw a piece at 404media.co, which I'd never
> heard of. They were talking about how one can enter a credit
> card number at the NYC subway website to get a record of
> when/where that person got on the subway. Huh?! They describe
> it as a service. They're maintaining records, enabled by the use
> of electronic payment. What gives them that right? The article ended
> with this interesting paragraph:
>
> "404 Media found that MTA’s trip history feature still works even when the
> user pays with Apple Pay. Apple told 404 Media it does not store or have
> access to the used card numbers, and does not provide these to merchants,
> including transit systems. Apple did not respond when asked to clarify how
> the MTA website feature works when a rider uses Apple Pay."

The bothersome thing here is that apparently anybody can retrieve that
info as long as they know a CC#. No warrant. Jealous spouse/partner.
Burglar.

> | What's most amazing is people complaining about ads who don't use
> | adblock plus. How could they NOT know?
> |
> I've never used any adblocker. I've never needed to because
> I block domains.
> But I sympathize with the majority. It's just too complicated
> to figure these things out, and it keeps getting worse.
> Also, an increasing number of sites try to sniff out adblockers.

Then I have to decide whether or not to turn it off. Most of the time
No. I'm lazy. I tried programming and hated it. AdblockPlus is fine.
Requires no expertise, just knowledge of the 'add-on' concept -- which
apparently isn't all that common.

> I depend on NoScript, but most people can't use it. It
> just requires too much understanding of how the Internet
> works. When a page doesn't work and there are 8 script
> sources, ballooning to 14, how many of those do you need
> to make the page work? It's out of control.
>
> There was a brief time when it all made sense. ActiveX
> and Java in webpages was being phased out. 10-15% of
> people were blocking script. It was widely agreed that
> any website using script shouldn't depend on it... Then Google
> started with the targetted ads and designed their search
> engine to prioritize commercial sites. It's been downhill since
> then.

Google has been a big disappointment. We should have been alerted when
they chose a dopey harmless-sounding name. They do something cool and
then cripple it. I do like my Pixel2 phone, though. And I haven't
figured out what harm they can actually do me. The AI thing is
bothersome, though. People as a group are too stupid to do it right if
there actually IS a right.

--
Cheers, Bev
It is just a bicycle. It is not dedication and bugs
in your teeth and dust and rain and mud. It is not
madness and harmony and glory and rhythm. It is not
muscle and flesh and sweat and lycra and wind.
It is just a bicycle. -- Bianchi

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[...]

> The other day I saw a piece at 404media.co, which I'd never
> heard of. They were talking about how one can enter a credit
> card number at the NYC subway website to get a record of
> when/where that person got on the subway. Huh?! They describe
> it as a service. They're maintaining records, enabled by the use
> of electronic payment. What gives them that right? The article ended
> with this interesting paragraph:
>
> "404 Media found that MTA?s trip history feature still works even when the
> user pays with Apple Pay. Apple told 404 Media it does not store or have
> access to the used card numbers, and does not provide these to merchants,
> including transit systems. Apple did not respond when asked to clarify how
> the MTA website feature works when a rider uses Apple Pay."

We (in The Netherlands) have a similar system, for *all* public
transport in the whole :-) country. But no-one can access my travel
history, unless they break into my account (name/password only, no
2SV/2FA (yet?)). (I doubt that the people running these systems can view
my data, because we have very strict privacy laws with big fines.)

Lately, the system can also be used with a debit- or creditcard
(instead of a special personalized card), but I don't have experience
with that use (no need, less features and probably more expensive).

[...]

"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
firefox or before they hit my screen?
>

It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
userContent.css would be applied by FF.

If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
blocks trackers well.

In alt.comp.software.firefox Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote:
> On 8/30/2023 5:56 PM, candycane wrote:
>
>> https://techradar.com/pro/youtube-ripping-site-finally-goes-dark-following-court-ordered-ban
>
> Thanks for that article, which starts off with this quote.
> "Youtube-dl site no longer loads & cannot even be accessed using a VPN"
>
> Two things potentially confusing with that quote are that Stan Brown (and
> the rest of us) know that the youtube-dl.exe has been long deprecated.

That's wrong. I use it all the time and it's still developed and working
fine, plus works with more versions of Python than yt-dlp.

The latest release at that website was, however, outdated. You can
get the latest daily build here:

Windows:
https://github.com/ytdl-patched/youtube-dl/releases/latest/download/youtube-dl.exe

Linux:
https://github.com/ytdl-patched/youtube-dl/releases/latest/download/youtube-dl

> And, I didn't even know there was a "web site" called youtube-dl.com (or
> whatever the domain extension was); so I suspect this is a copycat site.

www.youtube-dl.org was a legitimate website, but the developer/s
who maintained it haven't been active, hence it hasn't reflected
the latest version of the software for a long time.

> Another sentence which seems to explain what's going on is this one.
> "Despite GitHub being the platform hosting the open-source YouTube
> downloader, Uberspace was held legally liable because it linked
> to the developer platform."
>
> So it seems, perhaps, a rogue site (which is what's been taken down) was
> calling the (long deprecated) youtube-dl.exe (presumably from GitHub).

Completely wrong.

It does suggest that YouTube are likely pushing at M$/GitHub too,
in which case youtube-dl and yt-dlp with both likely be targets
because that's where they're both really hosted:

https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl/
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/

They're trying the same thing with the web-based Invidious
YouTube downloader, which also uses GitHub:

https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872

The latest post there is hopeful though:

SamantazFox commented Jul 14, 2023
"Hello everyone!
Quick update update on the subject: as we expected it, YouTube
didn't proceed further with their legal action threat.
If anything new comes by, we'll keep you informed, no matter what.
Thanks a lot for all of the supportive messages we received, this
means a lot to us!"

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 9/1/2023 7:27 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> Quick update update on the subject: as we expected it, YouTube
> didn't proceed further with their legal action threat.
>
> If anything new comes by, we'll keep you informed, no matter what.

Wow. That's fantastic! I read your entire post, and I don't disagree with
anything you said (I only requoted the ending for continuity purposes).

Thank you for CORRECTING my wrong assumptions!
You helped me understand - and better yet - you helped everyone else.

I long ago stopped using youtube-dl.exe as I was under the impression it
was no longer actively supported - and I was very familiar with NewPipe
breaking whenever Google decided to break it - so I figured it was the
knell of doom (much like TrueCrypt's deprecation pushed us to Veracrypt).

What you claim makes sense that Google will "try" to go after them all, as
they all do the same thing - albeit only the code can tell how they do it.

I know NewPipe explicitly explains what their code does, which is use only
the public APIs so I assume Google can't stop them - only irritate them.
https://newpipe.net/

As they say on the GitHub site, Google has "billions of lawyers" so if
Google could shut down NewPipe legally, Google would - but they can't.
https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/1160

Google would have to shut down every browser that plays YouTube content.

On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
> I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
> firefox or before they hit my screen?
>>
>
> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
> that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
> as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
> up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
> them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
> gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
> based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
> an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
> be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
> snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
> to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
> blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
> userContent.css would be applied by FF.
>
> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
> FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
> and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
> for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
> blocks trackers well.

Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.

--
Cheers, Bev
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote

>>>I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
>>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
>> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
>>that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
>>as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
>>up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
>>them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
>>gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
>>based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
>>an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
>>be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
>>snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
>>to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
>>blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
>>userContent.css would be applied by FF.

>> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
>>FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
>>and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
>>for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
>>blocks trackers well.

>Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
>even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.

I'm sure your suspicion is correct, that there is no useful measurement
of ad delivery and that advertisers are paying for views that never
occurred.

It's like directory listings on the Internet now that there's no such
thing as a telephone directory that somebody actually maintained with
somewhat adequate quality control. There is a negative incentive to fail
to remove outdated listings and bad listings. A hit is a hit. They are
measuring hits, not usefulness.

On 9/3/23 11:08 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 9/1/23 1:34 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
>>>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>I often wonder: At what point are the ads blocked? Before they hit
>>>>firefox or before they hit my screen?
>
>>> It depends. I once wrote a mime filter for IE. I'm guessing
>>>that FF allows a similar functionality. The IE version installed
>>>as an ActiveX component. One Registry setting would set it
>>>up as a kind of hook, getting access to files before IE gets
>>>them. So I could filter out script or anything else before IE
>>>gets the page. Adblock extensions probably do similar, filtering
>>>based on domain, image size, HTML, etc. For instance if there's
>>>an image from a remote source named "ad-top" then that would
>>>be a candidate. A lot of web designers share the same code
>>>snippets, so that method works pretty well. I've done similar
>>>to disappear cookie permission popups. So the extension probably
>>>blocks it before it gets to FF, while filters in something like
>>>userContent.css would be applied by FF.
>
>>> If you have a HOSTS file filter then it doesn't get that far.
>>>FF calls DNS to find out the IP address of ads.doubleclick.net
>>>and DNS says that's your own computer. So there's no place
>>>for FF to go to get the ad. That's especially good because it
>>>blocks trackers well.
>
>>Excellent. Now I wonder if the ad-deliverers get paid for the delivery
>>even if it doesn't actually make it to the viewer.
>
> I'm sure your suspicion is correct, that there is no useful measurement
> of ad delivery and that advertisers are paying for views that never
> occurred.
>
> It's like directory listings on the Internet now that there's no such
> thing as a telephone directory that somebody actually maintained with
> somewhat adequate quality control. There is a negative incentive to fail
> to remove outdated listings and bad listings. A hit is a hit. They are
> measuring hits, not usefulness.

If you look at a number of different "white pages" you can eventually
figure out what might be reasonably current information. I have a
number of them bookmarked, but I forget which is the best one and always
forget to mark it :-(

Undated reviews similarly useless. Even if submitted by people you
wouldn't regard as cretins, you have no idea if the review is current or
10 years ago when the product was made by a different company :-(

Looking for doctors is the absolute worst. They NEVER update those and
they REALLY need to.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of the people who pissed me off."