Invidious
Hey all, I found that invidio.us is an excellent website that allowed me to more or less de-google because Youtube was the last thing I used from google. However I am finding that the main site is down a lot.
Does anyone know why this is? Is google actively trying to mess with invidious for taking that sweet data away from their paws, or are they simply pushing new updates that break invidious as a side effect?
Do the invidious mirrors face this same problem?
I do have to say that I don't want to use yt-dl as an alternative because I don't wish to download any of the videos, I simply want to view them in cache.
Thanks!
I am a member!
On 12/05/2019 03:00 PM, name at domain wrote:
> Is google actively trying to mess with
> invidious?
Yes.
> Do the invidious mirrors face this same problem?
Yes.
> I do have to
> say that I don't want to use yt-dl as an alternative because I don't
> wish to download any of the videos, I simply want to view them in cache.
My issue is searching. It's hard to search without Invidious.
Ah thanks for clearing that up for me, I wasn't sure if it was intentional by google.
I'll keep using invidious though, maybe throw the dev some coin to help him out.
This seems to show how much of a dependency still exists on YouTube. All that's happened is inserting a proxy in the middle. The actual use/dependency on YouTube hasn't ended. Let's move in that direction. :)
> This seems to show how much of a dependency still exists on YouTube.
> All that's happened is inserting a proxy in the middle. The actual
> use/dependency on YouTube hasn't ended. Let's move in that direction.
> :)
From the beginning, I hoped the Invidious would add sources in addition
to YouTube or allow direct uploads to Invidious, so that it would not
only provide a short-term replacement for YouTube's frontend, but also
facilitate migration to alternatives to YouTube's backend. omarroth has
expressed being open to this, but not seeing it as high priority in the
short term.[1][2] I worry that at a certain point it may be too late.
If Google manages to completely block Invidious and Invidious has no
other sources to fall back on, it is dead.
I have the same concern, by the way, with DuckDuckGo, Startpage, Searx,
and all these other supposed alternative search engines. As far as I
know, they all directly or indirectly get their general-purpose search
results from Google or Microsoft. While Searx is free software, it
cannot ever replace non-free search engines when it relies on them to
work. The only active project I know of attempting to create a truly
independent search engine is Yacy, and it does not seem to be getting
very far.
[1]
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/invidious-youtube-redirect-site-agplv3-no-js-required#comment-135275
PeerTube appears as the most successful move: https://joinpeertube.org
There is also bit chute https://www.bitchute.com/
From what I read, it works like "torrent inside the browser" so there is no way to block a video if a lot of people are watching it. I believe peertube works the same way?
Is BitChute free software and federated?
Sorry, I don't know.
I mentioned it because I like its ability to be impossible to block. But I admit I am unaware of the software itself. As for being federated I also don't know.
One thing I don't like is the fact their website requires JS. I would prefer a JS free version, but I suppose it is probably necessary for the torrent like technology to do its job.
Bitchute's wikipedia page will make you rethink even using it. although that aside, I don't know if they put their software under a license. As far as I know.
Which usually means it would be by default put under a all rights reserved crapshoot license. Which I myself think should be illegal. Due to the potential abuses of such a license... for software/electronics anyways. :/
> I do have to say that I don't want to use yt-dl as an alternative
> because I don't wish to download any of the videos, I simply want to
> view them in cache.
$ mpv [url]
or try youtube-viewer
https://github.com/trizen/youtube-viewer
What I like about Invidious is that I can send people links without
having to worry about directing them toward non-free JS. I find that
mpv does a better job of actually streaming videos, especially lately
with Google's sabotaging of Invidious. (I am not sure whether they are
aware of and directly targeting Invidious, or if traffic patterns like
Invidious's are getting throttled and blocked in general. Either way,
things don't look good.)
Wow, I did not know mpv would do that. mpv is a very under-rated project in my opinion, just full of hidden goodies.
> Wow, I did not know mpv would do that. mpv is a very under-rated project in
> my opinion, just full of hidden goodies.
Not just with YouTube. It uses youtube-dl as a backend, so any video
that can be downloaded with youtuvbe-dl can be streamed with mpv.
Thanks for all the comments. I know that invidious is only a different frontend to youtube, and ultimately ripping youtube out is the best. I don't know if I'll be able to do this yet...
It's been about 3 months since I went libre and I'm taking baby steps to cease my old dependencies on non-free things. I have an iPhone, and even though its jailbroken, I want to get rid of it as soon as a better alternative hits the market. Both the pinephone and librem 5 could work, and I'm leaning more for the pinephone.
Unfortunately I've tried things like peertube and I don't think that it can replace youtube, at least not yet. I like what Chaosmonk said where invidious could use different sources or backends and slowly integrate things like peertube together with youtube. Not that I know how this would work in any way but in the search, if peertube videos would come up as well I wouldn't mind.
Thanks chaosmonk for that link with omarroth, I didn't know the dev of invidious was on the trisquel forums. I got some very insightful info from the thread. He does seem open to the idea of integrating other backends
"Adding support for other media sites is something that I would like to work on, although it probably get much attention until YouTube's functionality has been mostly implemented." --Omarroth
I feel like at this stage youtube's functionality has more or less been achieved. I don't know how it was back when he wrote it, but the site seems impeccable when its live. Maybe asking Omarroth if he would integrate peertube/mediagoblin/etc.. would work now if the servers didn't bear too much load.
One thing that I've found is that there are tons and tons of great videos on the internet archive: https://archive.org/details/movies
If all you are doing is wasting time on the internet looking for cool videos and movies and videos of old rock songs, the internet archive is as good as anything youtube has to offer. If you are looking for a specific recent video it's not that useful, of course. But for older stuff, it's a gold mine, and has a lot of stuff that youtube does not have.
"as soon as a better alternative hits the market"
That already exists in the form of https://replicant.us/
Replicant is free software from top to bottom and so it is -- by definition -- "better." :)
To my knowledge Replicant seems to have some unpatched exploits, or so I remember reading somewhere. Sometime ago I researched the Galaxy S2 and S3, also the GTA04, replicant phones and read up a lot about them. I'm patient enough to wait for the pinephone :P
> To my knowledge Replicant seems to have some unpatched exploits, or
> so I remember reading somewhere.
Jailbroken iPhones don't receive security updates at all, and although
jailbreaking removes some of Apple's restrictions, iOS is still
non-free, so I agree with jxself that Replicant is better.
You are right of course, Replicant is for now the best option. However I understand Beko's position, as in that he prefers to wait instead of spending money now on a device that he would have to replace later if it didn't serve him as well as he needed. Of course if money wasn't an issue it would be different, but since smartphones are not that cheap, one must be careful when making a choice. I understand why he stands with his rotten apple for a little longer. Meanwhile any phone device raises privacy issues so...
Currently iPhones not from this year or the previous have a bootrom exploit in read-only areas. It doesn't matter which version I'm on, Apple can't patch this, I'm jailbroken on the latest version with all the security updates.
That being said, I do hate this phone.
I just don't believe that a Galaxy S3 from 2012 that costs 426 Euros on technoethcial is in any way acceptable.
I find the pinephone at 150 USD a much smaller pill to swallow and plus it comes with full gnulinux as opposed to android.
> I just don't believe that a Galaxy S3 from 2012 that costs 426 Euros
> on technoethcial is in any way acceptable.
I don't think so either. It's a ripoff. The librebooted laptops I can
understand, because that requires external flashing, but installing
Replicant is very easy, and I have no idea why Technoetchical charges so
much. It took me under 20 minutes of pretty much blindly following
Replicant's documentation to install it without issue on a Galaxy S2 I
bought for less than 30 USD.
If S2's are going for that low... would you mind telling me where you found it? I wouldn't mind a 30 USD Replicant phone :D
> If S2's are going for that low... would you mind telling me where you
> found it?
Ebay.
How are you finding Replicant on the S2? Is what's specified in the device's status page working for you?
> How are you finding Replicant on the S2? Is what's specified in the
> device's status page working for you?
It worked okay for a while. Unfortunately a few months ago it stopped
being able to detect the SIM card, and the device became an alarm clock.
I have since bought a regular alarm clock and no longer use the phone at
all.
Did you replace it with another phone, or do you no longer use a cell phone?
> Did you replace it with another phone, or do you no longer use a cell phone?
I use JMP instead of a cell phone. https://jmp.chat/
I am a member!
On 12/19/2019 01:01 PM, name at domain wrote:
> I use JMP instead of a cell phone. https://jmp.chat/
That's what I do! :-)
> I use JMP instead of a cell phone. https://jmp.chat/
Alas, this is of no use, as I understand, to those outside of the U.S.
Regarding Replicant, is it not a matter of concern that it is considerably out-of-date software? Those who are, for example, still on Trisquel 7 are strongly urged, on this forum, to update to Trisquel 8. Why isn't the importance of being up-to-date not brought up when discussing Replicant?
Edit: I overlooked the conversation in this thread on the matter. Still, I am not convinced, especially, as I wrote, when some, who are still on T7, are (correctly) advised to update. Why?
> Alas, this is of no use, as I understand, to those outside of the U.S.
I wouldn't say that. The only current JMP instance (cheogram.com) uses
a North American carrier, so as a JMP user your JMP number will be a US
or Canadian phone number, but from this number you can still text and
call non-North-American phone numbers, so it is not necessarily useless.
It would depend on the details of the mobile plan of the people you want
to call/text and whether they are able to call/text North American phone
numbers.
> Regarding Replicant, is it not a matter of concern that it is
> considerably out-of-date software? Those who are, for example, still
> on Trisquel 7 are strongly urged, on this forum, to update to Trisquel
> 8. Why isn't the importance of being up-to-date not brought up when
> discussing Replicant?
Because being "up-to-date" is the wrong way of looking at it. It
doesn't matter how old the packages are. It matters whether they are
supported and receiving security patches. For example, Ubuntu 19.04 has
packages three years newer than those in Ubuntu 16.04, but as a LTS
release Ubuntu 16.04 is still supported and receiving updates, whereas
Ubuntu 19.04 packages aren't being updated at all. The reason users
should upgrade from Trisquel 7 is that it is based on Ubuntu 14.04,
which is no longer supported. According to Replicant's website,
Replicant 6.0 is still supported,[1] although Replicant 4.2 is not and
should probably not be used.
[1] https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/DeviceStatus
> from this number you can still text and call non-North-American phone numbers, so it is not necessarily useless.
And the texting and calling would happen over the Internet, via a Jabber client, right? And how would the fees work?
> It would depend on the details of the mobile plan of the people you want to call/text and whether they are able to call/text North American phone numbers.
Provided that they would be able to call/text North American phone numbers, they wouldn't be charged for doing so, as the activity would be done over the Jabber client, in which case they would need to have a Jabber account/client. Is my understanding correct?
> According to Replicant's website, Replicant 6.0 is still supported
Yet, the last security update for Android 6 is from October 2017, and the Webview browser component is outdated and has security issues because of that.[1]
[1] https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/DeviceStatus#Replicant-60
> And the texting and calling would happen over the Internet, via a
> Jabber client, right?
You would use a Jabber client for texting and a SIP client for calling.
> And how would the fees work?
The JMP dev charges around 3 USD/month to use his instance.
> Provided that they would be able to call/text North American phone
> numbers, they wouldn't be charged for doing so, as the activity would
> be done over the Jabber client, in which case they would need to have
> a Jabber account/client. Is my understanding correct?
Not exactly. Only JMP users use Jabber and SIP. If they contact other
JMP users, then there is no need to go through the cell network (or JMP)
at all. What JMP does is provide a relay bridge to the cell network, so
that you can also call/text cell phone users. From the perspective of
those cell phone users, it is as if they are receiving a normal
call/text from a North American number, so it is their own cellular plan
that will determine whether or not this is a problem.
> Yet, the last security update for Android 6 is from October 2017, and
> the Webview browser component is outdated and has security issues
> because of that.[1]
That sucks. Maybe they are putting all their effort in to getting
Replicant 9 out the door?
> You would use a Jabber client for texting and a SIP client for calling.
And this is how you personally communicate with cell phone users? And you do this on a computer, instead of a phone, I suppose? If so, how are you finding this setup; is it workable?
> it is as if they are receiving a normal call/text from a North American number, so it is their own cellular plan that will determine whether or not this is a problem.
Then, it is a virtual certainty that they would be charged extra to communicate with such a number, in which case this solution, as it stands, is not feasible.
> That sucks. Maybe they are putting all their effort in to getting Replicant 9 out the door?
Possibly, though it has been like this for a while now.
Between Replicant (i.e. free software that is, in practice, not supported and not receiving security patches) and regular Android or iOS, the ethically superior option, because it is freedom-respecting, is Replicant; but, as good practice is to abandon software that is no longer supported, what are one's real options here (apart from no longer carrying a cell phone): keep using Replicant, or use Android or iOS until Replicant gets updated or until another device, such as the Pinephone, gets released?
I am a member!
On 12/23/2019 09:50 AM, name at domain wrote:
> And this is how you personally communicate with cell phone users? And
> you do this on a computer, instead of a phone, I suppose? If so, how are
> you finding this setup; is it workable?
I call people from my landline and I text them from Gajim on my laptop.
It works for me. Since I can only do it at home, it makes my life less
burdened by distractions.
> > You would use a Jabber client for texting and a SIP client for
> > calling.
>
> And this is how you personally communicate with cell phone users? And
> you do this on a computer, instead of a phone, I suppose? If so, how
> are you finding this setup; is it workable?
It's great. Typing on a real keyboard is much more ergonomic than a
shitty touchscreen. Also, by using my laptop, I have been able to
integrate my electronic communications into my workflow in a way that is
not overly distracting. Mental-health-wise, ditching my cell phone is
the best decision I have made since deleting Facebook. While it was
initially the freedom and privacy issues that led me to stop using a
cell phone, even if these issues were someday resolved I do not think I
would ever go back.
> Between Replicant (i.e. free software that is, in practice, not
> supported and not receiving security patches) and regular Android or
> iOS, the ethically superior option, because it is freedom-respecting,
> is Replicant; but, as good practice is to abandon software that is no
> longer supported, what are one's real options here (apart from no
> longer carrying a cell phone): keep using Replicant, or use Android or
> iOS until Replicant gets updated or until another device, such as the
> Pinephone, gets released?
If I wanted a phone and were facing this choice, I would still take
Replicant over iOS or Android. Out-of-the box, Android is infected with
spyware, and iOS is controlled by another party who has full root access
and prevents the user from making changes to their own system. Ideally,
security updates would prevent nightmare scenarios like these from
occurring, but not when they are provided by your attacker.
That said, if Replicant is unacceptable to you, I would recommend
LineageOS. Freedom-wise, the only difference between from Replicant is
that LineageOS includes firmware blobs for hardware support, so it is
still miles better than iOS or Android.
When the Pinephone is released, I expect that it will be the best
option, other than not having a phone. Until it is released we won't
know for certain, but right now it looks like the only hardware
component requiring a firmware blob is WiFi, making it better than the
Android devices supported by Replicant and LineageOS. Since the WiFi
card has a hardware switch, you'll be able to just switch it off and
have a system as free as Replicant (firmware runs on the peripheral
device, not the main operating system, so if the peripheral device is
switched off then the blob is as good as gone, from my perspective).
There will also be a hardware switch for the modem, so at times where
you don't need to connect to cell towers you can switch it off to avoid
being tracked. (I think that freedom- and privacy-wise it is actually
better to have the non-free WiFi firmware, and to use the hardware
switches to switch between the WiFi card and the modem, favoring the
WiFi card whenever possible. The modem is worse privacy-wise and no
better freedom-wise than the WiFi card, so using the WiFi card instead
when possible is better than using the modem all the time.)
I am a member!
On 12/23/2019 02:04 PM, name at domain wrote:
> Typing on a real keyboard is much more ergonomic than a
> shitty touchscreen.
This. It's so much nicer having a real keyboard for everything. When I
try to use someone's tablet or phone, it's extremely cumbersome.
> > Typing on a real keyboard is much more ergonomic than a shitty
> > touchscreen.
>
> This. It's so much nicer having a real keyboard for everything. When
> I try to use someone's tablet or phone, it's extremely cumbersome.
I often see email signatures resembling "sent from my phone, sorry about
the typos." You know a UI is bad when its users have to habitually
apologize for it. :)
"To my knowledge Replicant seems to have some unpatched exploits"
Even if true this is a separate matter from software freedom. It may be useful to consider
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html
"For free software advocates, glitches and missing features are never a source of shame. Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even if it has other issues, free software always has freedom."
His "glitches and missing features" could also say "and security problems." So even if completely and totally insecure free software respects my freedom and so I maintain that it is -- by definition -- "better." Only free software gives me freedom.
"I'm patient enough to wait for the pinephone"
And the corresponding proprietary software to, for example, activate the screen? There was a discussion of that on the Replicant mailing list. No thank you.
> "I'm patient enough to wait for the pinephone"
>
> And the corresponding proprietary software to, for example, activate
> the screen? There was a discussion of that on the Replicant mailing
> list. No thank you.
You mentioned this in another thread, but I thought you were just
talking about the Librem 5. I didn't realize that the Pinephone would
have the same issue. This seems to contradict what PostmarketOS devs
told tonlee,[1] which is that the only non-free software included in
their Pinephone image will WiFi firmware.
In trying to find the discussion you refer to, I found this message[1]
linking to this page,[2] which says that the Pinephone's LCD panel and
touchscreen "probably works with free software".
How recent was the Replicant discussion? Do you mind linking to it?
[1] https:name at domain/msg00700.html
[2] https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Pinephone
Oh, I might have gotten my phones mixed up. In that case I apologize.
Theoretically couldn't a external wifi dongle be attached to the phone through the data port and have free wifi as well? I think andyprough, tonlee and I were discussing in another thread.
I am a member!
On 12/06/2019 08:04 PM, name at domain wrote:
> Replicant is free software from top to bottom and so it is -- by
> definition -- "better." :)
I'm too poor to afford a Replicant device from Technoetic. I'm sticking
to my little booklet of phone numbers, my mini calculator, my little
flashlight, my state map with routes drawn on it, and my pen.
--
Caleb Herbert
KE0VVT
816-892-9669
https://bluehome.net/csh
> I'm too poor to afford a Replicant device from Technoetic. I'm
> sticking to my little booklet of phone numbers, my mini calculator, my
> little flashlight, my state map with routes drawn on it, and my pen.
Installing Replicant is not like flashing Libreboot externally. You
just need a USB to microUSB cable and the ability to run a few terminal
commands. The devices themselves are not that expensive if you buy them
running Android and install Replicant yourself.
That said, Replicant phones still track you. They are better than
iPhones, but having no phone like you currently do is best.
invidio.us seems to be back up and working well today. Fingers crossed.
And it's back down. Dear, oh dear, we do need to move on from youtube backends.
Now, we just simply need to get a few billion videos uploaded to a totally new service that's always on, always available, and can handle at least a few million connections at a time. Should be easy!
While I certainly would prefer to get rid of youtube, I would for now settle to have Invidious operational. One solution would be to have a pre-configured Invidious that could be run locally over Tor. That would lead to all Tor Exit Nodes being banned by Youtube, which would cause more uproar than the mere banning of INvidious users. That could bring about some other solution... I don't see what, but would be a path at least.
Or maybe we could just use FreeTube. However their Tor proxying is extremely leaky... And no, I don't want to connect directly to Youtube servers.
LOL I like your way of thinking that google wouldn't be able to ban TOR end nodes without outrage. However I don't believe that the TOR network could handle the entire audience of invidious with the bandwidth it currently has.
Tor has an estimation of users between 2M and 8M... each day. I don't see Invidious having that amount of usage. Also, a lot of people already use it over Tor, plus everyone who watches regular Youtube over Tor. So yeah, the network can handle it no problem :)
As for the outrage, like I said there are way too many people using Tor, and many of them use Youtube (either directly or using alternative front-ends) so blocking all Tor Exit Nodes (which is quite easy to do) would cause more of an outrage from users than simply blocking Invidious instances. Google might not even be aware of Invidious at this time (I believe they are, but there is little confirmation on that). All in all, we need to move away from Youtube, but it's a difficult process.