Live data from Hacker News

We Need To Talk, Google

f-secure.com

241–245 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#241
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or if you're on Linux, you can use youtube-dl + mplayer to get a high-quality hardware-accelerated glitch-free viewing experience, instead of the RealPlayer-esque experience Flash provides.

Also try youtubedown in place of youtube-dl - I think it works with a bigger percentage of videos. http://www.jwz.org/hacks/#youtubedown

Source ? If some video doesn't work with youtube-dl, I'm sure they'd like to hear about it.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#242
post #241
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also try youtubedown in place of youtube-dl - I think it works with a bigger percentage of videos. http://www.jwz.org/hacks/#youtubedown

Source ? If some video doesn't work with youtube-dl, I'm sure they'd like to hear about it.

Own impression, but might just be luck vs. me updating them. Youtube changes the obfuscation around periodically to discourage apps like these.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#243
post #99

If anybody working for YouTube is reading this, here are my comments: I was actually supportive of G+ until I had a very bad experience with YouTube and the forced G+ integration recently. Now what I want from YouTube is (1) Ability to keep my current username and not use my real name, and not be linked to my G+ profile. I do not want to inadvertently broadcast my YouTube "Likes" to my social network. (2) I do not wa…

(1) You can keep your username, and it won't be linked to your profile. (You get a Google+ page instead.)

(2) You don't have to have a channel at all if you just want to watch videos, subscribe, etc. But you do if you want to create playlists, even private ones.

Your channel has privacy settings so you can hide everything. But if you don't trust YouTube to keep them hidden, then you probably shouldn't use it.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#244
post #205

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

But everything worked just fine before, I had a single Google account, a single Youtube channel and a single G+ page, and signing into either of these would sign me into everything else. After Google decided to "unify" Youtube and G+ accounts, I now have 1 Google account, 2 Youtube channels and 2 G+ pages , and that's not counting an extra Youtube channel I created, which accounts for 1 extra Google account and 1 ext…

I think the idea is one name per account. So if your Google Account was Sam Smith, your channel was Batman, and your G+ page was Joker, you would end up with three "accounts", each with its own G+ profile/page and channel.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#245

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

I don't want that! I want to remain anonymous to help improve the content of youtube without exposing myself to risk. For example I might want to post something bad about a competitor's youtube video, which will contribute to the discussion but I don't want my affiliation or name to distract from this conversation. The real problem is that the elimination of privacy that Google has so meticulously pursued has left th…

Why don't you think you can stay anonymous on YouTube? Don't all the prompts let you keep your channel name?
Post reply on HN