YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#451

Post by rainbowzootsuit » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 12:48 AM UTC

qwerty456127 wrote: post #430

rainbowzootsuit wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe get a cheap MVNO SIM like Ting Mobile and use that to register? I know I've had google accounts that didn't require any re authentication in the way of phone numbers for going on years so you can likely discard the number after you show you are human.

Won't it still also require a credit card for YouTube to believe your age?

I'm sorry, I haven't registered a new account in a while. I tested an account I've had since 2016 that I made with a ex employer's landline phone and I've never registered a credit card to. It is able to play age restricted video by confirming that I want to and nothing else. It's under a fictional name and birthday etc.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#452

Post by m463 » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 12:51 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #432

m463 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was a prepaid card.

So then what's the issue here? Honest question. He got birthday money and spent it on things. That's how it's supposed to work. If he then finds that he cannot purchase something else that he wanted because he blew his budget on video games, that's a valuable lesson that everyone needs to learn at some point.

The point is that a credit card is not a proxy for age.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#453

Post by sebmellen » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 2:40 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #447

sebmellen wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see much of the hardline Islamic substrate in the UK as deeply totalitarian. See this BBC Panorama documentary on Sharia courts functioning as a separate legal system for an example of what I’m talking about: https://youtu.be/4gZCFdHkd4A . If the all-powerful, authoritarian UK police and the (currently underground) Sharia courts ever collide or end up working together, that’s going to be one hell of a totalitarian…

In all Western countries that I know of - including UK - those courts are effectively arbitration courts, so they're very limited wrt the kinds of rulings they can make, and even then both parties have to agree to abide. So they're not really a separate legal system.

Unfortunately, many of them hand down rulings which conflict with UK and other local laws. At the very least they are conflicting systems — to what degree is a point of contention among legal scholars in the UK, as outlined in the linked BBC documentary.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#454

Post by Vektorweg » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 6:42 AM UTC

gm wrote: post #409

trutannus wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed this happening also. A little while back I posted something about how I found the right wing response to tech censorship funny, given that most sources on the right don't consider it real censorship. I then provided an example. I made no statement of opinion outside of saying I found it funny. The comment itself spent all day flipping between [-2, 2] points. What I found the most odd was that I never eve…

I don't think it's odd, tbh. People downvote stuff they do not agree with, even though the downvoted statement contains no opinion nor attack. That's just how people behave online.

Normally, there is no issue with people downvoting stuff on the Internet. But on HN, voting results in karma, which results in rights. Downvoting is therefore taking away rights, and as seen, on the basis of just opinions. Since downvoting itself is a right, opinions on HN are shaped by those that hold power with this right over others. HN is, more than any other place, enforcing its own filter bubble.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#455

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 8:07 AM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #446

zimpenfish wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many of whom earn more than the British Prime Minister. Is that the basic pay (£79,936; €92,584) or the basic+entitled pay (£155,376; €179,968)? (via https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... ) https://eufactcheck.eu/factcheck/uncheckable-4000-eu-officia... suggests that only 3-4000 (10-13%, not exactly "many"?) are PG13 or above which would be €196,305 (£169,481) - above UKPM.

How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce earning more than the PM not many of them? What threshold of the workforce would need such compensation to be considered many, in your view?

> How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce [...] not many of them?

As a raw number, sure, 4000 is "many" but 10% is not really "many of whom" (which is what GP said) - for me, obviously; other people's interpretation may vary.

(e.g. If I said "there's some cats outside; many of them are blue" but only 10% are blue, I would expect people to query the "many".)

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#456

Post by int_19h » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 10:15 AM UTC

sebmellen wrote: post #453

int_19h wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all Western countries that I know of - including UK - those courts are effectively arbitration courts, so they're very limited wrt the kinds of rulings they can make, and even then both parties have to agree to abide. So they're not really a separate legal system.

Unfortunately, many of them hand down rulings which conflict with UK and other local laws. At the very least they are conflicting systems — to what degree is a point of contention among legal scholars in the UK, as outlined in the linked BBC documentary.

There's no real conflict there, because the proper courts always have priority, same as in any other arbitration arrangement when the parties don't agree to participate.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#457

Post by CRConrad » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 7:11 PM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #152

manigandham wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make sense for a trillion-dollar company known for some of the best software engineering. There are remarkable lapses in UX with Google products.

Best engineering? Ever tried hiring some of those ex Google contractors? There is plenty of good engineers in Google and plenty of terrible engineers.

So their vaunted gruesome job interview process is no more effective than any other company's boring old normal one.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#458

Post by CRConrad » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #220

pavel_lishin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did everything end up shaking out? Were the parents on the hook for the credit card bill, or was the credit card company on the hook for issuing a card to Santos L. Helpar?

I think it was a prepaid card.

Isn't "prepaid credit card" an oxymoron?

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#459

Post by CRConrad » Thu, Jun 03, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

xref wrote: post #420

vasco wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm born in whatever far back year forms will let me choose in most internet services, over a 100 years old in a lot of cases, I assumed everyone did this.

On a site like HN I assumed everybody’s birthday was Unix epoch 0

Bah, young whippersnappers.

Re: YouTube-dl can no longer download age-restricted videos

#460

Post by thu2111 » Fri, Jun 04, 2021, 8:31 AM UTC

zimpenfish wrote: post #455

thu2111 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce earning more than the PM not many of them? What threshold of the workforce would need such compensation to be considered many, in your view?

> How is 4000 civil servants / 10% of the entire workforce [...] not many of them? As a raw number, sure, 4000 is "many" but 10% is not really "many of whom" (which is what GP said) - for me, obviously; other people's interpretation may vary. (e.g. If I said "there's some cats outside; many of them are blue" but only 10% are blue, I would expect people to query the "many".)

That's an interesting take on language. If you said many cats were blue, given that cats are never blue I'd certainly feel you were justified in saying many were if 10% of them were.

I tend to interpret many as a relative term, meaning "a high number relative to what you're probably expecting". The dictionary is no help here as it just defines many as "a lot", but that in turn is also a relative term.

I think if you want to argue with this point, a better tack would be to argue that the British PM is underpaid and EU staff are what "normal" compensation should look like. Quibbling over whether 10% of them being paid more qualifies as a lot isn't that worthwhile.