this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1149 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59415 readers
3102 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aramis87@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago (7 children)

What's a good YouTube downloader these days?

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 month ago

yt-dlp is the gold standard. Not only for YouTube either. Check out the man page, the amount of shit it can do is insane.

[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

yt-dlp is what i normally use, tho its only got a command line interface. I think someone's made a GUI for it, but I've never tried it.

[–] Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub 3 points 1 month ago

theres seal on android, ive used it on waydroid but thats pretty silly

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

There's like 20 guis

[–] astrsk@fedia.io 11 points 1 month ago

yt-dlp continues to be the best option for me.

[–] sunnie@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

if youre just looking for a downloader website with zero setup of your own there's cobalt

[–] mrvictory1@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] polysics@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Hell yeah. Another vote for Seal!

[–] Grangle1@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A great privacy focused client for YouTube is FreeTube. Uses a native API or Invidious for playback, and you can download and share videos from it. Doesn't give any identifying info to Google/YouTube and I've never once dealt with an ad. For mobile, Grayjay and NewPipe are similar apps.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The downloading on freetube is so bad as to be functionally broken, and based on what reading I did to try to get it good, it sounds like it's gonna stay how it is forever.

Basically it should be considered a lie to advertise freetube as having a working download function, even if it can technically do it. I wish it were better because it's a neat little program for viewing without mucking up recommendations!

[–] lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Screen capture while the video is running, like the VCR days of yore

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Nah, man. I point a Betamax camcorder on a tripod at my 4K, 16bpp graphics workstation monitor to make sure I really capture all those pixels.