And by the way, I always mostly used random birth dates whenever registering anywhere because I consider that personal information and don't want to share it. I don't even know what birth date did I set when I got my GMail back in the days it required invitations.
I don't feel like watching an age-restricted video ever again if this actually requires identification and leaves no workaround.
UPDATE: I'm actually surprised this gets down-voted.
Yes, and I want a pony. We can absolutely discuss how useful or harmful age verification on the internet is, (and your points about tracking are certainly valid) - but fact is that Google implemented it.
It is not youtube-dl's job to circumvent that. Their responsibility is letting me download the videos to my hard drive that I can already view in my browser. They never advertised themselves as a tool to circumvent access restrictions.
If the new age verification broke youtube-dl in such a way that you couldn't download the video at all, I think the outrage would be justified - but that isn't the case.
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.
It is frowned upon here, but not against the rules. Downvotes on HN should, optimally, only be used to downvote comments that truly do not add anything to the conversation constructively.
qwerty's comment, imo, was constructive, as that is a common use case of ytdl: to watch a video without being explicitly tracked by Youtube; although Youtube still does track you, but in ways that probably violate EU law, and might violate US law too.
>On HN, downvoting for disagreement has always been fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314
I was in agreement with your post until this throw-in line at the end. What reason do you have to believe that YouTube is breaking US and EU law?
2. They have been sued by the FTC, paid millions in settlements, and failed to prove that they did not break the law.
3. They are currently being sued by the DOJ and many states attorney general.
4. They have made numerous settlements in private privacy-related litigation as opposed to proving they were not liable, despite having enormous cash reserves available for legal costs.
If someone were to suspect Google was "probably" breaking the law, this does not seem like an unreasonable suspicion.
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 even said I agreed with the perspective in the example I cited!
I see the pattern has repeated itself here, how odd.
I guess this means I watch less YouTube, which is probably better for me in the long run. But like hell I'm signing in.
The church finally has a solution to their clergy loss. ;)
You are being downvoted to suppress your well thought out information. It would be nice if HN had a public ledger of who up or down voted a post. You would click on the post and could see which usernames voted and which way. It would bring much needed transparency to combat these information suppression abuses.
"I think the site should publicly post a list of users who upvoted and downvoted comments that I feel were wrongly suppressed."
I had to read your comment multiple times to determine whether it was intended to be sarcastic or not.
cookie: CONSENT=YES+cb.20210328-17-p0.en+FX+203Nothing Google does will make me want to create an account.
Honest question: Should logging out invalidate the cookie for future use. If one of these cookies falls into the wrong hands it grants "evergreen" access to the account. No password needed. I have noticed this behaviour with both Gmail and Facebook. These evergreen cookies makes it very easy to check FB and mail using shell scripts without logging in, which is nice, but it seems like it should be a security issue.
Yes. The act of logging out implies that you want the session terminated.
Doesn't that only work if you a) are in the EU and have verified your age or b) outside the EU?
https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#authentication-option...
But as of a couple days ago it wasn’t working for age-restricted videos.
get the extension, export the cookies.txt file to a folder, then run youtube-dl in that folder with:
youtube-dl --cookies cookies.txt https://youtu.be/id
it works as of right this minute [1] and in my experience that cookie continues to work even if you log out of your account in the browser and log back in etc
i'm trying to imagine a way to have a more permanent solution, maybe if youtube-dl provided some kind of login prompt type thing to enter some your credentials to virtually log in, although i imagine that would start to be another cat and mouse game of it working and then not working.
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/get-cookiestxt/bga...
[1] https://i.jollo.org/ytdl.gif