[Bug] "This helps protect our community." · Issue #4734 · iv-org/invidious
github.com
Update 21/09/2024: #4734 (comment) EDIT by @unixfox: The Invidious team is aware of this issue. It appears that it affects all the software using YouTube. Please refrain from commenting if you have...

cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685

EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says

Hello,

Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore.

If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..

This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don’t abuse them since the number is really low.

Feel free to discuss this politely on Matrix or IRC.

  • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    2143·
    3 months ago

    And while we’re at it, stop calling them ‘content creators’

    EDIT: to clarify, my stance on this is that ‘content creator’ devalues the human endeavour behind a piece of work (or content, if you will). Instead it’s just slop for the machine, and who cares what it is as long as it gets numbers, right?

    • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      464·
      3 months ago

      What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?

        • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          So what should we say when discussing people who make video, audio, text media?

          I see their point about “content”, where, on YouTube, for example, it devalues the videos as subordinate to YouTube as a platform, but I think as people use the word “content” it loses that connotation.

      • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1311·
        3 months ago

        Well, we start by referring ta work not as “content”, but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
          183·
          3 months ago

          … Which is a type of content.

          There’s a lot of content that doesn’t fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.

          • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            But don’t you think it’s a bit reductionist? We read books, not analogue text content. We eat meals, not nutritional content. We listen to songs, not rhythmic euphoria content. I don’t think it’s about commercial concerns - in fact, the term ‘content’ to refer to anything and everything is the ‘commercial’ way of putting it.

            Someone hitting ‘record’ on a microphone and jamming on a guitar is still music. Why should we treat video any differently?

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              It’s a technical term, we may not use it in everyday conversation, but it is the correct term.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          164·
          3 months ago

          Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣

          His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it’s called content for a reason.

      • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1711·
        3 months ago

        To answer the “why”, it’s because the word “content” is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons… it’s all just this generic “content” slop that’s just there to feed the machine

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
              51·
              3 months ago

              I mean, you don’t call it whatever you like, but content is the technical definition of it.

            • arglebargle@lemm.eeEnglish
              41·
              3 months ago

              I agree with this a lot. I really do not like the term “content”. It is like going to a recipe for some “slop”, like using a term that is just a catch all for everything tossed on a plate.

              Art is great. Movies, music are also fine terms. And so is simply saying they made a video. Watering it all down to the term “content” is just so boring and mind numbing.

          • sailingbythelee@lemmy.worldEnglish
            41·
            3 months ago

            Not really. The term “content creator” is corporate speak. Google’s ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It’s not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation’s binary world view.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          That’s pretty insulting, a lot of what YouTube creators do takes real skill, and it’s a full time job for many.

          • borgertwo@ani.socialEnglish
            11·
            3 months ago

            In the past maybe, but certainly not these days. It’s overglorified corporate money grab propaganda, that goes around shamelessy guilt tripping viewers when truth is spoken. Much of these so-called content creators do not much else than making face react videos to something they saw and just talk about their likes or dislikes. They get paid lots just to make a soy-jack face and shitty clickbaits. The amount of money some them get paid is large sums insane for little efforts in proportion to what worth it actually ought to be. There people out there putting real efforts and labor to contributions to society to keep it running that paid squat in comparison. Its sad really. Go ahead downvote me, it doesn’t change the truth i speak.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          3 months ago

          Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.

          Entertainer isn’t a label I’d necessarily apply to educational content, for example.

            • Tja@programming.devEnglish
              161·
              3 months ago

              Yes it’s much better to use

              “comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls”

              … than…

              “content creators”.

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
              81·
              3 months ago

              What do you have against creators as a label? I don’t really see these difference myself.

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              47·
              3 months ago

              Or just call them Content creators, recognize they don’t really produce value for anyone but YT’s grab on the attention economy and start living in the real world.

        • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
          9·
          3 months ago

          Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn’t call an entertainer. That’s why “content creator” is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.