From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

candycanearter07,

Have you ever noticed that those websites all act as if you have
already agreed with the terms *as soon as* you enter their website ?
Cookies, javascript, tracking, the works. They *could* have made
an entry-portal (auto-redirected on first visit) which explains
the rules and allows you to decline and exit, but no.

...

If they were too honest then nobody would use the site.

Yes, they would. Most people do not read or care what is being said. They just mash the "OK" button (if one is there) and continue on.

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not* tell you what
all they claim rights to *should* be a big red flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ? wasda ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 23.01.2026 18:44, R.Wieser wrote:

candycanearter07,

Have you ever noticed that those websites all act as if you have
already agreed with the terms *as soon as* you enter their website ?
Cookies, javascript, tracking, the works. They *could* have made
an entry-portal (auto-redirected on first visit) which explains
the rules and allows you to decline and exit, but no.

...

If they were too honest then nobody would use the site.

Yes, they would. Most people do not read or care what is being said. They just mash the "OK" button (if one is there) and continue on.

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not* tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ? wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in sight
anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

ciao...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 17/01/2026 00:41, Frank Miller wrote:

Simon wrote:

It looks like YouTube has blocked video downloads using yt-dlp. Has
anybody noticed this?

Yes. Since months now....
Tell news

You do realise you have to update yt-dlp occasionally to keep up with YouTube's changes?

The 2025.12.08 version works fine, for most free to watch videos for me.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Schugo,

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't
have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

Schugo,

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers
and will never be my friend ;)

ciao..

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers
and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead
of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead
of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer
instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

ciao...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>>have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>>nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>>and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead
of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer >instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

It was followup, not an answer as you hadn't asked a question. You also
missed that I hadn't disagreed with you.

Whoosh
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 23.01.2026 20:59, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who >>>>>>stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>>>have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>>>nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>>>and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead >>> of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer >>instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

It was followup, not an answer as you hadn't asked a question. You also missed that I hadn't disagreed with you.

Whoosh

what does a reply "you go out of your way to behave immaturely" mean then?

ciao...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-01-23 20:54, Schugo wrote:

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>> have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>> nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>> and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead
of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

There can be a car racing by silently that you do not see and kills you.
There can also be a policeman lurking by.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 24/01/2026 5:43 am, R.Wieser wrote:

Schugo,

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not* tell
you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red flag to
anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ? wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in sight
anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which
doesn't have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules,

"its rules", sure, but not " *THE* rules".

the ones you do not know but agreed with nonwithstanding, by trying
to cross the road.

Regards, Rudy Wieser

--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 23.01.2026 22:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-01-23 20:54, Schugo wrote:

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>>> have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>>> nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>>> and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead >>> of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer
instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

There can be a car racing by silently that you do not see and kills you. There can also be a policeman lurking by.

sure! or a small meteorite debris smashing thru my skull...
be afraid of the tyrrants!!!1 big brother is watching!!1
there's no escape!!1

ciao...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Daniel70,

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which
doesn't have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules,

"its rules", sure, but not " *THE* rules".

What was the car analogy ment as being an example for ? Are those websites playing by *THE* rules ? Or just by the ones they dreamt up for themselves ?

FWI, we here in Europe got something thats called GDPR, which are *THE*
rules here. It includes a provision for *informed* consent.

The fact that such consent is considered to have been given *the moment* you are landing on their website and that information about what you're
consenting to is absolutily absent makes it rather clear that they do *not* play by *THE* rules, but only their own.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 24/01/2026 8:42 pm, R.Wieser wrote:

Daniel70,

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which
doesn't have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules,

"its rules", sure, but not " *THE* rules".

What was the car analogy ment as being an example for ? Are those websites playing by *THE* rules ? Or just by the ones they dreamt up for themselves ?

If 'they' are coding by 'their' own rules, they are probably not very successful.

FWI, we here in Europe got something thats called GDPR, which are *THE*
rules here. It includes a provision for *informed* consent.

The fact that such consent is considered to have been given *the moment* you are landing on their website and that information about what you're consenting to is absolutily absent makes it rather clear that they do *not* play by *THE* rules, but only their own.

Does the GDPR dictate what The Road Rules are?? Lights ON after Dark!!
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Daniel70,

What was the car analogy ment as being an example for ? Are those
websites playing by *THE* rules ? Or just by the ones they dreamt up for
themselves ?

If 'they' are coding by 'their' own rules,

You're the only one talking about coding here I'm afraid. It was about "We're doing whatever we please and f*ck you" rules.

they are probably not very successful.

Yes, Microsoft, ABM, Apple, etc where never successful businesses, right ? Neither where all those "social media" companies. :-p And lets not even
talk about all those tat-bazars, where you can buy stuff for
next-to-nothing. And those on-line gaming companies where you can buy your way into "winning" ? Those never came off the ground either, right ?

What was that tat-bazar again where you can have lots of money (as a seller
or buyer) on "your" account, but they do not think they need to obey the
rules banks need to adhere to, and they can just lock your account for no reason at all that they care to (or even dare to) mention. Ah yes, ebay.
It never became suscsessful either, did they ? :-p

And yes, I'm /trying/ to tell you here thet *lots* (all?) of companies play
by their own rules, and some got /humongously/ successfull by it.

Does the GDPR dictate what The Road Rules are?? Lights ON after Dark!!

Pretty much. You are not allowed to gather someons private data (by
whatever means!) unless you told the user how and why and allowed them to decline - which may not be used as an excuse to decline access to the
website.

At one time Google had "accept all" and "change your settings" buttons -
where the last one led you to a page wherr you had to decline each-and-every choice seperatily (the so-called "cookie walls"). Later that changed to "accept all", "decline all", and "change your settings" buttons (making accepting and declining equally as easy). Yeah, that was GDPRs doing.

It was still a farce though, as your "decline all" choice was put into a cookie with the "no" choice being expressed as some kind of quaint series of symbols, never a simple "no", "declined" or similar.

Chances that that "kind of quaint series of symbols" could/would contain
some kind of tracking code was not at all unthinkable. Which circles back
to 'they' are coding by 'their' own rules.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On 2026-01-24 09:43, Schugo wrote:

On 23.01.2026 22:54, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2026-01-23 20:54, Schugo wrote:

On 23.01.2026 20:20, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Schugo <schugo@schugo.de> wrote:

23.01.2026 19:43, R.Wieser wrote:

The fact that those "if you keep using us" websites do *not*
tell you what all they claim rights to *should* be a big red
flag to anyone seeing such a message. Informed consent ?
wasda ?

the people who care about this shit are to me like someone who
stops at a red traffic light at 3am when there is no car in
sight anywhere. just walk over the fucking street.. who cares?

I certainly don't. You can do you.

Just don't complain when you get mowed down by a black car which doesn't >>>>>> have its lights on and you therefore didn't see.

That car played by its rules, the ones you do not know but agreed with >>>>>> nonwithstanding, by trying to cross the road.

people who stop at a red traffic light (walking) at 3am are total losers >>>>> and will never be my friend ;)

Uh, no. It's because you go out of your way to behave immaturely instead >>>> of just talking to people.

For my purpose, I pay strict attention to traffic and will cross the
street when it's safe, avoiding conflicts. At one specific
intersection I use daily, that means crossing after conflicting cross
traffic has gotten through but before I get the signal, knowing that
I'll then be in conflict with vehicles turning left or right whose
drivers ignore me and my dog. It depends on what's safest.

yea.. you also can't read what I wrote and post some bullshit answer
instead...
I wrote 3am: no car in sight

There can be a car racing by silently that you do not see and kills you.
There can also be a policeman lurking by.

sure! or a small meteorite debris smashing thru my skull...
be afraid of the tyrrants!!!1 big brother is watching!!1
there's no escape!!1

ciao...

I have seen such cars in my city. You don't know people here.
Oh, I forgot ambulances.
I see police cars patrolling in the night, I notice their blue lights at
3AM. Just patrolling.

I happen to live near an all night foodie place that the police uses :-p
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ESEfc-Efc+, EUEfc-Efc|;
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Simon wrote:

It looks like YouTube has blocked video downloads using yt-dlp. Has
anybody noticed this?

I've also tried using VPN and the same result. It says error 403
forbidden or something like that.

[download] Got error: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden. Retrying fragment 1 (1/10)...

This summary below may well be wrong, but it's what I think happened.
And, more importantly, this contains recommended Windows solutions.

1. What changed on YouTube
A. YouTube added new JavaScript based proof-of-origin checks.
B. These checks run real browser-like JavaScript.
C. Python alone cannot run that JavaScript.
D. yt-dlp must now call an external JS engine to pass those checks.

2. What changed in yt-dlp
A. yt-dlp added support for external JS engines.
B. Without one, YouTube extraction fails or gives warnings.
C. This requirement became important in late 2025.

3. What Deno is
A. Deno is a standalone JavaScript and TypeScript runtime.
B. It is a single EXE on Windows, no installer needed.
C. yt-dlp can auto-detect deno.exe if placed next to yt-dlp.exe.
D. This makes Deno the easiest choice for Windows users.

4. What Node.js is
A. Node.js is an older, widely used JavaScript runtime.
B. It works with yt-dlp, but it needs a full installation.
C. It is not a single portable EXE on Windows.
D. yt-dlp supports Node, but Deno is simpler for most users.
E. To get and install the version that worked for me:

5. Are Deno and Node the same
A. No. And yes. They both run JavaScript outside a browser.
B. But they are separate projects with different designs.
C. Luckily, yt-dlp does not care which one you use.

6. Why you never needed this before
A. For years, yt-dlp could decode YouTube signatures in Python.
B. YouTube now uses JavaScript challenges Python cannot emulate.
C. This forced yt-dlp to rely on an external JS engine.

7. What does ffmpeg have to do with this process
A. ffmpeg is only used for muxing and transcoding.
B. The JS engine is needed only for YouTube extraction logic.

8. What are the relevant JS engines that yt-dlp can use
Below are the JavaScript engines that are realistically usable
with yt-dlp.

a. Deno
A. Single portable EXE.
B. Easiest option for Windows.
C. Auto detected by yt-dlp.
C:\> curl -LO https://github.com/denoland/deno/releases/latest/download/deno-x86_64-pc-windows-msvc.zip

b. Node.js
A. Requires a full installer.
B. Widely used and reliable.
C. Auto detected by yt-dlp.
C:\> curl -O https://nodejs.org/dist/v22.11.0/node-v22.11.0-x64.msi
C:\> start node-v22.11.0-x64.msi
C:\> yt-dlp --js-runtime node https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY82T7Q8hiw

c. Bun
A. Newer JS runtime.
B. Has a Windows build.
C. Auto detected if on PATH.

d. QuickJS
A. Small standalone JS engine.
B. Windows builds exist but not common.
C. Auto detected if qjs is on PATH.

Summary:
i. Deno is simplest.
ii. Node is most common.
iii. Bun works but is newer.
iv. QuickJS works if installed manually.
--
Every Usenet post should strive to add palpable additional value
so that we can all delight in dissemination of useful knowledge.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 10:09:51 -0500, Maria Sophia wrote:

Summary:
ii. Node is most common.
iv. QuickJS works if installed manually.

Both of these have standard packages available on Debian, and so
should be available in derivatives as well.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.comp.software.firefox

Lawrence DoOliveiro wrote:

On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 10:09:51 -0500, Maria Sophia wrote:

Summary:
ii. Node is most common.
iv. QuickJS works if installed manually.

Both of these have standard packages available on Debian, and so
should be available in derivatives as well.

Thanks for adding value for Linux users, especially since the FF ng is
involved here, even as it doesn't have much to do with Firefox, per se.

Here is s'more information about the new "proof-of-origin" checks which
yt-dlp is needing the JS engines such as those listed above to download.

1. What a proof-of-origin check is
A. It is a server-side test that tries to confirm that a request really
came from a real web browser, not from a script or a downloader.
B. YouTube uses it to decide whether to serve a video stream or to
block the request with errors such as 403 Forbidden.

2. How the check works
A. YouTube sends JavaScript code that must be executed exactly the way
a browser would run it.
B. The code computes tokens, signatures or cookies that prove the
request originated from a browser-like environment.
C. If the JavaScript is not executed correctly, the server refuses to
provide the video data.

3. Why yt-dlp cannot do this alone
A. yt-dlp is written in Python, not JavaScript.
B. Python cannot run the browser-style JavaScript that YouTube now
requires.
C. yt-dlp must therefore call an external JS engine to run the code
and produce the correct proof-of-origin values.

4. Why this is new
A. For many years YouTube used simpler signature systems that yt-dlp
could decode in Python.
B. YouTube now uses more complex JavaScript challenges that Python
cannot emulate.
C. This change began rolling out in late 2025 and continues to expand.

5. What the check accomplishes
A. It slows down automated scraping.
B. It forces tools like yt-dlp to behave more like real browsers.
C. It lets YouTube rotate or update the challenge without warning.

6. Summary
A. A proof-of-origin check is YouTube asking the client to run real
JavaScript to prove it is a browser.
B. yt-dlp must use Deno, Node, Bun or QuickJS to run that JavaScript.
C. Without a JS engine, the proof cannot be generated so extraction
fails.

This is, I believe, the fundamental cause of the "403 Not Found" errors.
--
Had I known how it works, I would have written up a tutorial instead since
I'm a rare breed of person who delights in edifying everyone around me.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2