The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

Post by DaSHacka » Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

fatchan wrote: post #109

molticrystal wrote: post #23

The claim that Google secretly wants YouTube downloaders to work doesn't hold up. Their focus is on delivering videos across a vast range of devices without breaking playback(and even that is blurring[0]), not enabling downloads. If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and const…

Written by somebody who hasn't taken 1 look at yt-dlp source code or issues. Google regularly pushes updates that "coincidentally" break downloaders. The obfuscation and things they do to e.g. break a download by introducing some breaking code or dynamic calculation required only part way through the video is not normal. They are not serving a bunch of video files or chunks, you need a "client" that handles all these…

Post by moritzwarhier » Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 6:55 PM UTC

Aissen wrote: post #222

molticrystal wrote: post #23

The claim that Google secretly wants YouTube downloaders to work doesn't hold up. Their focus is on delivering videos across a vast range of devices without breaking playback(and even that is blurring[0]), not enabling downloads. If you dive into the yt-dlp source code, you see the insane complexity of calculations needed to download a video. There is code to handle nsig checks, internal YouTube API quirks, and const…

You conveniently side-stepped the argument that YouTube already knows how to serve DRM-ized videos, and it's widely deployed in its Movies & TV offering, available on the web and other clients. They chose not to escalate on all videos, probably for multiple reasons. It's credible that one reason could be that it wants the downloaders to keep working; they wouldn't want those to suddenly gain the ability to download D…

Post by noja » Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 7:54 PM UTC

drnick1 wrote: post #136

imiric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the web devolves further, the only viable long-term solution will be allow lists instead of block lists. There is too much hostility online—from websites that want to track you and monetize your data and attention, SEO scams and generated content, and an ever-increasing army of bots—that it's becoming infeasible to maintain rules to filter all of it out. It's much easier to write rules for traffic you approve of,…

This is more or less what I already do with uBlock/uMatrix. By default, I filter out ALL third party content on every website, and manually allow CDNs and other legitimate third party domains. I still use DNS blacklists however so that mobile devices where this can't be easily done benefit from some protection against the most common offenders (Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, etc.)

Post by balder1991 » Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 8:00 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #154

peteforde wrote: post #86

One of the things that drives me crazy about YouTube is that if a video gets taken down, it shows up as a "This video is no longer available" with no further metadata. I am far, far more uptight about no knowing which video was removed than I am about the fact that it is no longer available. I have put serious thought into creating a tool that would automatically yt-dlp every video I open to a giant hard drive and ap…

> In general, I think people are way too casual about media of all kinds silently disappearing when you're not looking. I used to be obsessed with this. The way I saw it was the universe took billions of years of concerted effort to generate a random number that represents a unique file such as an interesting video or image. It would be such a shame if all that effort was invalidated due to bullshit YouTube reasons o…

Post by killingtime74 » Sat, Sep 20, 2025, 8:56 PM UTC

jacobgkau wrote: post #85

lucb1e wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the organization does not have the resources to setup an alternative. Can confirm at least one tech news website argued this point and tore down their own video hosting servers in favor of using Youtube links/embeds. Old videos on tweakers.net are simply not accessible anymore, that content is gone now This was well after HTML5 was widely supported. As a website owner myself, I don't understand what's so hard n…

> As a website owner myself, I don't understand what's so hard now that we can write 1 HTML tag and have an embedded video on the page. You acknowledge that it's not that simple: > running ffmpeg at a few quality settings upon uploading (there are maybe 3 articles with a video per day, so any old server can handle this) Can any old server really handle that? And can it handle the resulting storage of not only the hig…