[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.

    • brrt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      96·
      2 months ago

      And how are they going to make a living to keep producing videos?

      I’d say ask them to join Nebula.

      • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
        33·
        2 months ago

        That depends. If they only make a living with YT ads, then it’s going to be hard.

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          28·
          2 months ago

          About half the ads I see on YouTube are already within the videos they post. I wonder what the overall ratio is of YouTube ad revenue versus in-video ad revenue.

          • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
            15·
            2 months ago

            Are you talking about sponsors? Because yes, that has nothing to do with YT ads.

        • brrt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          2 months ago

          I guess I forgot things like Patreon which could be a valid option. Although I’m neither a fan of subscribing to specific creators nor am I particularly fond of Patreon.

          With Nebula my perception is that I pay a monthly fee and they can figure out who gets what depending on whose videos I watched. I don’t need to be particular in my action on who to support.

          • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            Nebula is a good option, but now you’ve created a paywall. Now only people who can afford it, can watch the content and what is to keep Nebula from upping the price of the subscription?

            If ads is out of the question, then content creators need to use sponsors and patrons, if they want to make a living.

            • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
              7·
              2 months ago

              People want a fantasy world where all the main content is free and two or three rich sponsors support the creator by sponsoring little extras only available to Patreon supporters. The ends will never meet in the middle on that. It’s a fantasy where people get what they want for free because someone else pays for it. Won’t work. Get out your cash, kids. Cancel your Netflix and put the money into Nebula.

              • borgertwo@ani.socialEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                Don’t shift the blame on “people wants” as if they’re owed by the people. Most people dont even ask for whatever content that is pushed out. And what’s more content creator is just a glorified term for online digital panhandlers. And they frame it as if viewers are meant to owe them something all while contributing as little to their efforts that amounts to no significance as possible. Imagine paying someone to make a facial reaction and talking for a bit everytime you passed a panhandler and they call themselves a content creator. It’s bogus way to frame or even justify that especially considering they get payed far larger sums comparison to people who actully work for a living while dodging the taxes. And is unlikely any such platform as youtube as well as its big panhandlers are struggling with finances. Youtube gets $15 billion dollars a year in ad revenue and hey greedily continue the push for more ads. And the digital panhandlers calling themselves content creators can make more money in a week than the typical wage slave can in a year.

                • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  Interesting thing here:

                  YouTube’s top 3% of channels now attract 90% of total views, up from 67% in 2006. Even among those elite channels, average annual ad revenue is only $16,800 - less than a third of U.S. median household income. For the remaining 97% of YouTubers, reaching even that modest income level is nearly impossible given the platform’s increasingly skewed viewership distribution.

            • Barbarian@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              5·
              2 months ago

              An advantage of funding things via a collective like Nebula as opposed to each individual creator managing their own patrons is that new creators can start making bigger, more expensive projects quicker. Even established creators have this advantage, they can take bigger risks on bigger projects with the safety net of a share of the nebula pie.

              I don’t think a project like The Prince would exist without Nebula, for example.

                • Barbarian@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  2·
                  2 months ago

                  Thanks for the link, it was a very interesting read. While it is disappointing that it’s not actually a collective (assuming this blog post is accurate), having a platform run and owned by 6 creators is still better than YouTube’s governance structure, and still has the advantage in having both the capacity and desire to invest in creators.

              • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                2 months ago

                Nebula is also priced for the masses. You get an entire video service for one reasonable price. Patreon finally has really low priced options like $1 a month but for the longest time it was like $25/month just for the entry level supporter package and I could never justify blowing all that on one creator. I also hated digging around the Patreon app for the sponsor content and dealing with its stupid push notifications.

                I find Nebula is a much more sustainable thing. And I still discover new creators there. Because after all I’m not going to be set for life with one or two YT creators. I want to find new things too. Nebula gives you that.

          • darvit@lemmy.darvit.nlEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            You could also send money via paypal or kofi if you don’t like subscriptions, if the creator has it set up.

          • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            Yes if a creator’s main living can be shifted into Patreon or their own independent subscription service, THEN you will see them move off of YT because it actually works against them at that point. Mark Spagnuolo aka The Wood Whisperer has made this transition. He’s been around years (decades?) with awesome quality woodworking content. He’s found independent sponsorships. He’s created his own subscription service and takes direct payments but also uses platforms like Patreon. He plays the social media game very well. He travels to trade shows and keeps up with a podcast. He is the gold standard for what it takes a creator to move off of YT and still make a living IMO. His wife is a driving force behind making the business work and I think it’s a full time job for her too and probably a staff of employees. Mark used YT in the early years to build an audience but he does very little at all on YT nowadays.

            He also has very little out there now that is free 🤷‍♂️

            You can’t have it both ways

      • warm@kbin.earth
        23·
        2 months ago

        Remember when people posted on YouTube for fun? It’s only when it became a viable business that the platform turned to shit.

        • borgertwo@ani.socialEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          Ah yes, youtube now is just one big ad and sponsorship cesspool flooded with clickbait and misinformation and with highly privacy invasive protocol. Its a souless capitalisic corporate machine. I dont know why people would still use it. Just let youtube die.

      • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        2 months ago

        All the people I watch on youtube make the majority of their money on patreon or twitch. Youtube is way too heavy handed with demonitization and copyright strikes to be a trutsworthy income source.

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        They can still post on YouTube.

        It might take a tiny bit of their revenue away but I doubt it would make much of a dent, especially for creators that run mostly on patreon anyway.

      • BatrickPateman@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        Patreon and all the other services creators have at their disposal already.

        Don’t think most Youtubers can make a living these days solely on YT as revenue, and are already exploring other avenues.

      • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        Paying Nebula subscriber here 🙋‍♂️

        I can’t stand hearing people whine about wanting everything for free and how DARE people try to make a living so they can eat in between making videos!!!

      • Optional@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        I just want the videos no creator makes money on. I expect thats about 50% at least. Let’s start there. Put them in the Library of Congress and YouTube will be free to enshittify themselves into oblivion without complaint.

    • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      22·
      2 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?

    • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      or odysee ig but i cannot find a good peertube instance i can post in

      • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        What are your criteria for a good instance? I host one myself, so genuinely curious.

        • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          The age limit yeah I think the peertube instances on their site follow the gdpr

          • Meldrik@lemmy.wtfEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            Yea, a minimum of 13 years old is pretty common. Also something I agree with, as I don’t think kids under 13 should be on social media.

            • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              talking about most of them have a minimum of 16 but 13 is fair honestly its everywhere but i am 14