There’s comments on the issue that suggest that this is impacting any YouTube user rather than just Invidious users: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment...
NewPipe still working so far.
Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
51–60 of 102 posts
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
YT premium unfortunately scales very poorly for low usage. I probably average about one youtube video watched per month, so while I'm not opposed to paying something , I am opposed to watching any ads, and I'm not going to pay $13/video.
With the family plan, the cost calculation is very different Blocking ads can be viewed as theft from the creators and many creators do see it this way
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#53I use individious because the current youtube frontend is bloated and slow on firefox. Maybe they should focus on improving their frontend instead of blocking frontends that other people prefer.
Google needs to fire their entire UI/UX staff, this is "my first website" levels of usability. 2004-era websites were more functional.
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#54There’s comments on the issue that suggest that this is impacting any YouTube user rather than just Invidious users: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/4734#issuecomment...
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paying for YT premium is even better. No ads and you support the content creators
And Nebula.tv is best of all. No ads, you support the content creators, and you don't feed YouTube's near-monopoly on video distribution.
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#56Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably many would choose to block Invidious, and many would not. It sounds like none of them get a choice in the matter, which is why it's not crazy to question whether community is used as a euphemism in this case.
> Presumably many would choose to block Invidious, and many would not. Is this something a creator can do on their own today? How many of them are aware of Invidious?
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#58Sounds like the good ol' vague "For security reasons..." that companies use to excuse various things.
I have never figured out to what I would possibly be continuing.
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Nebula.tv is best of all. No ads, you support the content creators, and you don't feed YouTube's near-monopoly on video distribution.
This sounds like YT premium, but just a different platform that has no ad supported option. These platforms are dependent on the network effect and the creators and viewers are only going to use a limited number of platforms (2-4)
Re: Google has been blocking Invidious with error "This helps protect our community"
#60I use individious because the current youtube frontend is bloated and slow on firefox. Maybe they should focus on improving their frontend instead of blocking frontends that other people prefer.
I’ve been using Firefox for maybe 15 years. It has always been great. But in the past year or so, I’m finding that more and more web experiences are buggy and slow in Firefox, which is really frustrating. I don’t know if it’s that developers don’t do sufficient QA testing in Firefox, or the creators of Firefox have fallen behind. Either way it doesn’t bode well. I’m being forced to reach for Chrome more and more just…
I recall reading a post here on HN that Google has been found from time to time to intentionally cripple the FF user agent, which in turn led me to "discover" the sheets bug fix.
This does not change much about what you wrote, but it's at least something to do against malicious incompatibility