Youtube seems to be blocking access to a seriously large amount of publicly listed videos
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 - 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%
like this
CerebralHawks
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •Lyra_Lycan
in reply to CerebralHawks • • •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.
ReversalHatchery
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •I just read somewhere that it's because clients need to wait until the pre-roll ad ends. until that the servers will block requests to the actual video for your client
TimLovesTech
in reply to CerebralHawks • • •like this
ignirtoq likes this.
IndescribablySad@threads.net
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •like this
ignirtoq likes this.
Lyra_Lycan
in reply to IndescribablySad@threads.net • • •like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Hegar
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •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.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness, ignirtoq e DaGeek247 like this.
Lyra_Lycan
in reply to Hegar • • •like this
Hegar likes this.
prole
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •IndescribablySad@threads.net
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •TimLovesTech
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •like this
DaGeek247 likes this.
Riskable
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •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.
floofloof
in reply to Riskable • • •Gravitywell.xYz
in reply to floofloof • • •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
like this
Coopr8 likes this.
Coopr8
in reply to Gravitywell.xYz • • •Coopr8
in reply to Coopr8 • • •fubbernuckin
in reply to Riskable • • •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.
Coopr8
in reply to fubbernuckin • • •fubbernuckin
in reply to Coopr8 • • •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
in reply to fubbernuckin • • •(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
in reply to Coopr8 • • •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.
Riskable
in reply to fubbernuckin • • •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.
Lyra_Lycan
in reply to Riskable • • •prole
in reply to Riskable • • •annoyinglyfish
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •Pamasich
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •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.
This one is almost certainly just delisted.
The fediverse has its own video platform (peertube).
weirdo_from_space
in reply to Pamasich • • •DFX4509B
in reply to weirdo_from_space • • •weirdo_from_space
in reply to DFX4509B • • •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
in reply to weirdo_from_space • • •weirdo_from_space
in reply to prole • • •1ostA5tro6yne
in reply to Pamasich • • •IngeniousRocks (They/She)
in reply to 1ostA5tro6yne • • •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.
DFX4509B
Unknown parent • • •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.
Lime Buzz (fae/she)
in reply to DFX4509B • • •Lyra_Lycan
in reply to Lime Buzz (fae/she) • • •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.
Lime Buzz (fae/she)
in reply to Lyra_Lycan • • •TimLovesTech
Unknown parent • • •Lyra_Lycan
in reply to Lime Buzz (fae/she) • • •Sauerkraut
in reply to TimLovesTech • • •