From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to: <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>

on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download material for offline use."


I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.

I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to: <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>

on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download material for offline use."

I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Rink
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 8/19/2025 7:47 AM, Rink wrote:

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here. >> Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to:
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>


on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download >> material for offline use."


I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Rink

Windows 7
SeaMOnkey 2.53.21
I do not have any of this. I just started YouTube playing a Brahms
symphony without logging in or even being requested to login.
--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/
Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because
she REPORTED THE TRUTH about a weakening labor market. How can
we now trust any economic data from the federal government?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/19 15:47:57, Rink wrote:

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here. >> Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to:
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>


on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download >> material for offline use."

Are you, or are you just watching, "live" as it were? If the latter,
it's a bit rich of them to assume _anyone_ not signed in is attempting
to do that.>>

I do not want a YouTube account.

Understood! I have one - it adds some convenience - but in general I
share your reluctance. (FWIW, mine is from before YouTube were part of
Google, though I suspect that doesn't make any difference these days.)
You _can_ turn off virtually all logging etc., though they are of course
on by default.
Do you have a Google or other account? Sometimes you can log in to some
sites by using logins from others, so without giving any more
information than you've already given; I'm pretty sure a Google one can
be used to log in to YouTube.>>

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

With increasing clampdowns ("it's to protect the children!"), things are probably heading that way. (UK users now have to show something to log
into porn sites, though I haven't tried so don't know what's involved.)>>>> If yes, which are the alternatives?
Sorry, can't remember - there's at least one big one, though. Vimeo
isn't it, but I think that does have a lot.>>

Rink

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Rink

Hmm; sounds like something else is reloading it. Do you have Firefox set
to reopen all tabs you had open when you closed it? If so, try either
turning that feature off, or closing all but some innocuous tab (to your
own web page, or Wikipedia, or something) before closing and reopening
it. (I don't know if Firefox also does anything on opening if you have
Google as its default searcher; you may need to change _that_ too, if
only temporarily, to see if that stops them reappearing.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++()Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Rink wrote:

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here. >> Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to:
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>


on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to
download material for offline use."


I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Rink

I don't have a google or youtube acct and do not have those issues.
My browsers are set to delete cookies and other data on browser close.
It sounds like some thing or things are accessing the internet and specifically google or youtube without your knowledge.
You will need to find out what and permanently kill processes.
Try using process explorer, process hacker, connections viewer, etc.
I use an old free version of zone alarm (9.2.102.000) to block all
unwanted communication with the outside world.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Rink wrote:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.

I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to: <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>

on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download material for offline use."

I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

Sorry, can't duplicate on multiple tested youtube videos.
Same results(all play fine without disturbance), no signon prompt/no
youtube account, when using Edge, Chrome, SeaMonkey, Firefox.

The only distraction, for some long videos, the video pauses with an ad
for a few seconds until the ad ends and a 'Skip' button when clicked
returns to the video.
--
...w-i|#-o-#-n|#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 19/08/2025 15:35, Rink wrote:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.

I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to: <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>

on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download material for offline use."

I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

Do you use a VPN to access YouTube or any other Google services? If so,
you will always be prompted to log in. Google is aware of all the free
and paid-for VPN providers, and plans to crack down on them.

In some countries, On-Line service providers are required to verify
their users' ages before granting them access. The UK is one such country.







--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 12:27:27 -0400, "...winston"
<winstonmvp@gmail.com> wrote:

Rink wrote:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to:
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>


on which I read:

"Make sure youAre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyAre attempting to download
material for offline use."


I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

Sorry, can't duplicate on multiple tested youtube videos.
Same results(all play fine without disturbance), no signon prompt/no
youtube account, when using Edge, Chrome, SeaMonkey, Firefox.

The only distraction, for some long videos, the video pauses with an ad
for a few seconds until the ad ends and a 'Skip' button when clicked
returns to the video.

Same here; I can watch YouTube without logging in.

Of course, part of the problem is that Google rolls out its new ideas
slowly, so not everybody will get the same experience. So just because
others aren't seeing the same problem, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We may not have been caught up in their latest mousetrap yet.

Then again, it might just be that -for whatever reason- Google's
servers are flagging you as a 'potential bot'. This could be because
there is something on your computer that is triggering it. For
instance, I used to have a browser extension that sent random search
requests to various search engines to mess with their data-collection algorithms. I turned it off because its automatic behavior started
triggering "you may be a bot" warnings similar to yours (although in
this case, it was accurate, since the extension was a bot ;-).

Alternately, you may be blocking some scripts --either through a firewall/antivirus, adblocker or browser extension-- that Google uses
to help identify bots. Since a lot of bots have those disabled, this
may be triggering Google into thinking you are also a bot. Or you may
be in an IP range that is known to host a lot of bots (for instance,
your particular choice of VPN).

All of this can make it really hard to troubleshoot.

Try using another browser (one without advert/javascript blockers, for instance) and see if the problem reoccurs. That will see if its
browser based. If possible, hook up to a different wifi hotspot and
repeat, to check if its related to the IP. This will help narrow down
the possible range of the problem.




--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/19 17:21:22, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

[]

I use an old free version of zone alarm (9.2.102.000) to block all
unwanted communication with the outside world.

Does that work on Windows 10? (Since you're posting here, I presume it
does.) I remember its contact control as being rather easy to use.

Where do you get it - or have you had the installer for some time?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Today, I dare say more people know who starred as /The Vicar of Dibley/
than know the name of the vicar of their local parish.
- Clive Anderson, Radio Times 15-21 January 2011.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/19 17:34:21, YT user wrote:
[]

Do you use a VPN to access YouTube or any other Google services? If so,
you will always be prompted to log in. Google is aware of all the free > and paid-for VPN providers, and plans to crack down on them.

In some countries, On-Line service providers are required to verify
their users' ages before granting them access. The UK is one such country.

I'm in the UK, and I thought that (came in about a week ago?) was just
for access to (legitimate) porn sites? I certainly haven't had to do
anything different for access to YouTube in the last few weeks.>





--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 19/8/2025 10:35 pm, Rink wrote:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.
I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

What browser? I have never bothered to login Youtube using Gmail
accounts, so far nothing happened. :)
--
@~@ Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
/ v \ May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
/( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
^ ^ https://github.com/changmw/changmw
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.

I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

"Learn more" is a link to: <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3037019#zippy=%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-into-youtube%2Ccheck-that-youre-signed-in-to-youtube>

on which I read:

"Make sure yourCOre signed in to YouTube.
In order to protect the YouTube community, we may prevent signed-out
users from accessing YouTube videos when theyrCOre attempting to download material for offline use."

I do not want a YouTube account.

So, is this the end for YouTube when you do not have an account?

If yes, which are the alternatives?

Rink

Thanks for your answers.

What happened, I think we will not discover...
I'm allowed to look YouTube video's again without "Sign in".

The only thing I did was: I deleted the cookies from google and youtube.
I discovered that there is one cookie from YouTube I cannot delete.


To answer some of your questions and suggestions:

I do not have a google account.
I'm in The Netherlands.
I do not know what EU plans are for "protecting the childs".
But I do not want to give a fingerprint or an eye-scan.
And certainly not my ID card or a copy of it. Stupid idea!
Everything what's on internet will be hacked, so you just
can wait for the hacker who sells millions of hacked ID-cards....

I have Windows Firewall (on Windows7)
but it looks like it's only about incoming traffic.
Maybe I should try Avira Firewall?
Or zonealarm (an old one for Windows7)?

My Firefox does not reopen all tabs,
it only starts with one tab: "about.blank".
If I close firefox all tabs are gone, I can only find the links in the history.

I have duckduckgo as default searcher.

Using adblock Plus I only see (shortend) ads before a video starts, no
ads during a video.

I don't use a VPN.

NoScript blocks all scripts except the ones I allow.
A lot of sites wants javascript and I decide per site if I allow it.

You cannot internet if you do not want google scripts, they are on
almost all sites....
But I have a Facebook container which also blocks instagram, whatsapp
and other meta things.

I think I do not have software which do bad things,
but I do not know how to check this.

Rink
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Do you have Firefox open to about:blank? If not, do any of the
favorites listed in the home page as shortcuts include any Google site?
If you don't want a blank home page, but you don't need all the favs
listed on the home page, see:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customize-firefox-home-screen

What, if any, items did you add to Firefox's purge-on-exit option (what
it deletes when exited - which mean you have to exit, not leave an
instance running by pinning to the Taskbar)?

Are there any "live" tiles in the Start menu for any Google site?

When revisiting Youtube, was Firefox left running in the background, so
you ended up reusing a web session instead of starting a new web session
by exiting and reloading Firefox?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> wrote:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.

For issues with Firefox, it has its own newsgroup over at ---. .------------------------------------------------------------'
'---> alt.comp.software.firefox
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-19 20:50, Rink wrote:

Op 19-8-2025 om 16:35 schreef Rink:

I do not know where to ask this question on usenet, so I ask it here.
Sorry fot that.


I get this text at all video's from YouTube since a few minutes:

"Sign in to confirm you're not a bot"
"This helps protect our community. Learn more"
with a "Sign in" button.

Thanks for your answers.

What happened, I think we will not discover...
I'm allowed to look YouTube video's again without "Sign in".

The only thing I did was: I deleted the cookies from google and youtube.
I discovered that there is one cookie from YouTube I cannot delete.

Someone reported a similar problem maybe a month ago [...] Yes, at alt.comp.software.firefox, in June. "Re: Can't use Youtube any more"
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:34:21 +0000, YT user wrote :

Do you use a VPN to access YouTube or any other Google services? If so,
you will always be prompted to log in. Google is aware of all the free
and paid-for VPN providers, and plans to crack down on them.

Google is aware of *most* of the VPN providers, but not all.
Ask me how I know this... :)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:35:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

Someone reported a similar problem maybe a month ago [...] Yes, at alt.comp.software.firefox, in June. "Re: Can't use Youtube any more"

I'm extremely familiar with the problem that the OP described.
And I *never* log into a Google Account using any web browser.

At the time it started (months ago), we were told that Google had
too many bots so they implemented a selective method of requiring signin.

I never sign in but I can only get away with that using some browsers
and using some IP addresses and using some VPN obfuscators, etc.

SO, it's the classic YMMV situation.
But I get it a LOT so I agree with the OP's initial post.

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my experience.

This happened when Google changed things due to bots a few months ago.
It was publicized in the war channel I frequent (see below).
Because that war channel started requiring you to prove you're an adult.

Here's my 10-step way to reproduce the problem, or to work around it:
1. Choose an IP address (some of us have VPNs & some have SOCKS proxies)
2. Choose a web browser (some have proxies & vpn extensions)
3. Make sure you are NOT logged into Google by any means whatsoever
4. Make sure you have no cookies or saved data either of any type
5. Go to <https://www.youtube.com/>
6. You should see "Try searching to get started" and below that
"Start watching videos to help us build a feed of videos you'll love."
7. If you see anything other than an almost blank page, repeat #3 & #4
8. Search for "Denys Davydov" (which is adult war material about Ukraine)
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=denys+davydov>
9. Click on the latest war report (there's a new report every day)
10. Depending on #1 and #2 and #3 above, I get one of two results:
a. Sign in to confirm you're not a bot
This helps protect our community. Learn more
Sign in
b. Or, it just plays.

My results?
A. Most browsers & most IP addresses will NOT play the video.
B. Some browsers & some IP addresses DO play the video.

This is the classic YMMV.
Your results depend on what Google thinks is a potential bot.

This has been the case for many months now.
So it's not new.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 07:59:41 -0700, David E. Ross wrote :

Windows 7
SeaMOnkey 2.53.21

I do not have any of this. I just started YouTube playing a Brahms
symphony without logging in or even being requested to login.

I've been working around this problem for many months now...
Everything depends on how much Google thinks you're a "bot".

The cleaner you look to Google, the more you look like a "bot" to them.
If you're messy, and you leave crumbs lying around, then Google likes you.

But if Google thinks you're a bot, then Google plays hardball with you.
Ask me how I know this.

It's important to note that the cleanest test is when you go to the YouTube page in a web browser & zero thumbnails show up on that web page.

Go to <https://www.youtube.com/>
You should see "Try searching to get started" and below that
"Start watching videos to help us build a feed of videos you'll love."

Said another way, if even a single video thumbnail shows up at the
youtube.com web site, then you are most likely already logged into Google
or somehow (via cookies?) still associated with your Google Account in
that web browser.

At that point, you'll be a "new person" to Google.

Depending on what Google thinks about wehther or not you're a bot
(i.e., IP, browser, extensions, etc.), it will do one of 2 things:

1. It may let you play, or,
2. It will require you to log in.

If you are required to log in, you have to change up your browser, geolocation, extensions, VPN, proxy, whatever - until Google likes it.

I've been doing this for months - where I never log in, and I always
see the YouTube videos that I want to see - but - it's a PITA for sure.

This is the classic YMMV situation, especially for those who actually have logged in within the past year or so into a Google Account (I have not).
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 19.08.2025 20:50, Rink wrote:

...
I have Windows Firewall (on Windows7)
but it looks like it's only about incoming traffic.
Maybe I should try Avira Firewall?
Or zonealarm (an old one for Windows7)?

when a programm tries to make a network connection
for the first time a Windows Firewall window appears,
asking for permission.
You can find a list of all those remembered settings in
Cotrol Panel->Windows Firewall: (TreeView) |Lberwachung(?)->Firewall

To block access, you must remove the allowed programm from the list,
start it again, then choose "Block".

ciao..
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/19 17:21:22, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

[]

I use an old free version of zone alarm (9.2.102.000) to block all
unwanted communication with the outside world.

Does that work on Windows 10? (Since you're posting here, I presume it
does.) I remember its contact control as being rather easy to use.

Where do you get it - or have you had the installer for some time?

J. P., I have had the old Zone Alarm since it came out years ago. I
forgot what year. It works on W10. 9.2.102 was the last one before
they started including a LOT of ad ware, garbage, and call home. Even
this one has ad ware but it is not mandatory to install and you could
still turn off the ZA client from calling home. Just have to be careful
not to click on "install this worthless adware".

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 16:47:57 +0200, Rink wrote:

And after this I deleted all cookies from google and youtube
and closed my Firefox, but the "youtube.com" cookie just
re-appears without opening youtube in my firefox browser?
Three times....

Private browsing mode is the easiest way to enjoy a cookie-free browsing experience.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-20 00:14, Marion wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 23:35:12 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

Someone reported a similar problem maybe a month ago [...] Yes, at
alt.comp.software.firefox, in June. "Re: Can't use Youtube any more"

I'm extremely familiar with the problem that the OP described.
And I *never* log into a Google Account using any web browser.

At the time it started (months ago), we were told that Google had
too many bots so they implemented a selective method of requiring signin.

I never sign in but I can only get away with that using some browsers
and using some IP addresses and using some VPN obfuscators, etc.

SO, it's the classic YMMV situation.
But I get it a LOT so I agree with the OP's initial post.

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my experience.

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my default
browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to login. I don't try to
hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in, and there
is another browser in which I'm logged in. They might find out I am the
same person, but that would show.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 02:25:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my experience.

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my default
browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to login. I don't try to hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in, and there
is another browser in which I'm logged in. They might find out I am the
same person, but that would show.

Thanks for bringing a different datapoint up in this youtube bot issue.

A great reason to start the way I described is everyone starts the same. There's no connection whatsoever to Google starting the way I did.

Still, Google is like Amazon Vine, where their algorithms are unknowable. Still, I can generally control the common bot failures to get a success.

Below are some screenshots I made today showing the whole process.
a. First, there's nothing at the youtube page
b. Then I fail because youtube thinks I'm a bot
c. Then I flip a few switches & youtube thinks I'm not a bot

Each time, I tweak the conditions which I've learned over time how to do.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpyFGJx9/Clipboard-08-19-2025-01.jpg> get started
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cv1kngT/Clipboard-08-19-2025-02.jpg> enter search
<https://i.postimg.cc/ry4crb7k/Clipboard-08-19-2025-03.jpg> enter channel
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wWQJb2z/Clipboard-08-19-2025-04.jpg> you're a bot
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqcrDkQ0/Clipboard-08-19-2025-05.jpg> modify bits
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fxXL7BH/Clipboard-08-19-2025-06.jpg> reject all
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC2R6XP3/Clipboard-08-19-2025-07.jpg> you're no bot

Notice in the same session, I'm a bot, and I'm not a bot, all depending
on what I do with the browser settings and which Google seems to look at.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 20/08/2025 3:24 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/19 17:34:21, YT user wrote:

[]

Do you use a VPN to access YouTube or any other Google services? If so,
you will always be prompted to log in. Google is aware of all the free
and paid-for VPN providers, and plans to crack down on them.

In some countries, On-Line service providers are required to verify
their users' ages before granting them access. The UK is one such country. >>

I'm in the UK, and I thought that (came in about a week ago?) was just
for access to (legitimate) porn sites? I certainly haven't had to do
anything different for access to YouTube in the last few weeks.

"(legitimate) porn sites"?? Really!! Do such sites exist?? ;-P
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-20 06:07, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 02:25:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my experience.

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my default
browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to login. I don't try to
hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in, and there
is another browser in which I'm logged in. They might find out I am the
same person, but that would show.

Thanks for bringing a different datapoint up in this youtube bot issue.

A great reason to start the way I described is everyone starts the same. There's no connection whatsoever to Google starting the way I did.

I just tried with starting a new Private Window in Firefox. I went to
youtube, was asked to accept or reject cookies. I said accept all -
perfectly safe, they will be deleted when the window is closed.

Then I get the empty search box on youtube you show on your photo. I
type to search for "anders puck nielsen", get the page, click on a
video, works instantly.

I open another private window, accept all cookies, and try your same
search. Click on a video, works instantly.

I'm using 140.1.0esr (64-bit) on Linux.


This behaviour of youtube might be related to the IP range.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 20/08/2025 9:39 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 06:07, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 02:25:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my experience. >>>

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my default
browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to login. I don't try to >>> hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in, and there
is another browser in which I'm logged in. They might find out I am the
same person, but that would show.

Thanks for bringing a different datapoint up in this youtube bot issue.

A great reason to start the way I described is everyone starts the same.
There's no connection whatsoever to Google starting the way I did.

I just tried with starting a new Private Window in Firefox. I went to youtube, was asked to accept or reject cookies. I said accept all - perfectly safe, they will be deleted when the window is closed.

When you re-open youtube in a Private Window .... were you asked to Accept/Reject again??

Or were your settings in fact Saved??

Then I get the empty search box on youtube you show on your photo. I
type to search for "anders puck nielsen", get the page, click on a
video, works instantly.

I open another private window, accept all cookies, and try your same
search. Click on a video, works instantly.

I'm using 140.1.0esr (64-bit) on Linux.

This behaviour of youtube might be related to the IP range.

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

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/20 12:5:37, Daniel70 wrote:

On 20/08/2025 3:24 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/19 17:34:21, YT user wrote:

[]

Do you use a VPN to access YouTube or any other Google services? If so,
you will always be prompted to log in. Google is aware of all the free
and paid-for VPN providers, and plans to crack down on them.

In some countries, On-Line service providers are required to verify
their users' ages before granting them access. The UK is one such country. >>>

I'm in the UK, and I thought that (came in about a week ago?) was just
for access to (legitimate) porn sites? I certainly haven't had to do
anything different for access to YouTube in the last few weeks.

"(legitimate) porn sites"?? Really!! Do such sites exist?? ;-P

I believe so: in much the same way as legitimate magazines do - or used
to, I don't know if they still do (Playboy, Mayfair, Club international,
etc. - these are names I remember from decades ago, don't know which
still exist). Legitimate such sites would only contain material it is
legal to possess - only adults and consensual, and often have statements
that all models are over age and have lodged consent forms, that sort of
thing. I'm told, for example, that Xhamster and Xvideos are such sites;
I don't know.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-20 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 20/08/2025 9:39 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 06:07, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 02:25:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than not).
It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations in my
experience.

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my default
browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to login. I don't
try to
hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in, and there >>>> is another browser in which I'm logged in. They might find out I am the >>>> same person, but that would show.

Thanks for bringing a different datapoint up in this youtube bot issue.

A great reason to start the way I described is everyone starts the same. >>> There's no connection whatsoever to Google starting the way I did.

I just tried with starting a new Private Window in Firefox. I went to
youtube, was asked to accept or reject cookies. I said accept all -
perfectly safe, they will be deleted when the window is closed.

When you re-open youtube in a Private Window .... were you asked to Accept/Reject again??

Or were your settings in fact Saved??

If I open a new window, yes, I get asked again. A new tab, with the
first one still open, no. If in that tab I ask to go to google, yes. I
open then again youtube, no. They persist until the window is closed.

If I open a second window, it doesn't ask.

I open a third window, closing the youtube tabs in the two previous
windows, no question.

So it seems to ask the first time you open a private window, all others
share. When all private windows are closed, and I open another, it asks
again.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 20/08/2025 10:26 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 13:57, Daniel70 wrote:

On 20/08/2025 9:39 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-20 06:07, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 02:25:13 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

It definitely happens in many situations (more often than
not). It's roughly about 80% or about 90% of the situations
in my experience.

Well, I have never logged into Google (or youtube) in my
default browser, and I have never been asked by youtube to
login. I don't try to hide, either.

Of course, there are phones in the house where I'm logged in,
and there is another browser in which I'm logged in. They
might find out I am the same person, but that would show.

Thanks for bringing a different datapoint up in this youtube
bot issue.

A great reason to start the way I described is everyone starts
the same. There's no connection whatsoever to Google starting
the way I did.

I just tried with starting a new Private Window in Firefox. I
went to youtube, was asked to accept or reject cookies. I said
accept all - perfectly safe, they will be deleted when the window
is closed.

When you re-open youtube in a Private Window .... were you asked to
Accept/Reject again??

Or were your settings in fact Saved??

If I open a new window, yes, I get asked again. A new tab, with the
first one still open, no. If in that tab I ask to go to google, yes.
I open then again youtube, no. They persist until the window is
closed.

If I open a second window, it doesn't ask.

I open a third window, closing the youtube tabs in the two previous
windows, no question.

So it seems to ask the first time you open a private window, all
others share. When all private windows are closed, and I open
another, it asks again.

Ah!! Right.
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:39:54 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

This behaviour of youtube might be related to the IP range.

I'm sure it is.

As I said, this is the classic YMMV situation we all know & love.

Given I watch "adult" war material (e.g., RFU, Deny Davydov, etc.),
which the Russian bots have attempted to destroy, and given I never in my
life have logged into YouTube (and yet, I see whatever I want), I run into
this problem in spades.

All I'm saying for the team is the problem is very real, but it won't
affect everyone because it's up to Google's bots detection algorithm.

Google's & Amazon Vine's algorithms are hard to game because they're unknowable, but they're easy to game because they're sophomoric.

Draconian.
But sophomoric.

This is my opinion only - based on fighting the Amazon/Google algorithms.
--
I generally win, but I have to tweak a bunch of values to be invited to the club (such as my trick that worked for two people to be invited to Vine).
<https://amazon.com/vine/about>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 21/08/2025 1:45 am, Marion wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 13:39:54 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

This behaviour of youtube might be related to the IP range.

I'm sure it is.

As I said, this is the classic YMMV situation we all know & love.

Given I watch "adult" war material (e.g., RFU, Deny Davydov, etc.),
which the Russian bots have attempted to destroy, and given I never in my life have logged into YouTube (and yet, I see whatever I want), I run into this problem in spades.

All I'm saying for the team is the problem is very real, but it won't
affect everyone because it's up to Google's bots detection algorithm.

Google's & Amazon Vine's algorithms are hard to game because they're unknowable, but they're easy to game because they're sophomoric.

Draconian.
But sophomoric.

This is my opinion only - based on fighting the Amazon/Google algorithms.

They are, supposedly, money making entities ... so want to make money
out of YOU!!
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 20.08.2025 00:48, Schugo wrote:

On 19.08.2025 20:50, Rink wrote:

...
I have Windows Firewall (on Windows7)
but it looks like it's only about incoming traffic.
Maybe I should try Avira Firewall?
Or zonealarm (an old one for Windows7)?

when a programm tries to make a network connection
for the first time a Windows Firewall window appears,
asking for permission.
You can find a list of all those remembered settings in
Cotrol Panel->Windows Firewall: (TreeView) |Lberwachung(?)->Firewall

To block access, you must remove the allowed programm from the list,
start it again, then choose "Block".

oops... I forgot:
In this treeview "Outbound Rules" you can also manually add a rule for any program outbound and inbound to allow and block ;)

ciao..

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 16:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote:

The most reliable is the open source YouTube-replacement named NewPipe.
<https://newpipe.com>

rCLThis Domain Is For SalerCY ...
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:55 +0100, wasbit wrote :

Presume you meant Newpipe.net
- https://newpipe.net/

Oh. Thanks again. You keep catching me on inadvertent faux pas! :)

Over the years, I think I've tried every YouTube replacement app ever
suggested on the Android ng, including SkyTube, SmartTube, YouTube Vanced/Revanced, Invidious, FreeTube, PipePipe, Seal, ClipGrab (yt-dlp/youtube-dl), etc., where I find that NewPipe (.net!) is the
generally best, although they're each not equally the same functionality.

Bear in mind I have over a thousand packages on my 64GB Android phone, and
yet I have no Google Account so I don't use YouTube on Android, and even
so, I can watch anything I want to watch on both Android & on Windows.

We just need to be intelligent about it - and - we need to do some work.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 20:27:01 +1000, Daniel70 wrote :

Google's & Amazon Vine's algorithms are hard to game because they're
unknowable, but they're easy to game because they're sophomoric.

Draconian.
But sophomoric.

This is my opinion only - based on fighting the Amazon/Google algorithms.

They are, supposedly, money making entities ... so want to make money
out of YOU!!

Yup. Your data is valuable to them because they mine it daily.

Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything
you don't have to, and never pay for anything.

Of course, some things you must log into, e.g., GMail, but if you're smart about it, you can log into Google Servers with a modicum of privacy.

Just never use the Google GMail app to do it!

While I've tried them all over the years, the best is FairEmail IMHO, but
K9/TB and others would work as well - just never use the GMail app ever!

Well, you can use it on iOS - but not on Android as it *creates* an account
on the phone on Android the instant you log into Google using that app.

Most of Google's privacy attacks (e.g., turning on precise location and
wi-fi scanning when you're nowhere near Wi-FI access points) are both
Draconian and sophomoric.

The childish way Google does things lies in the approach to defeat them. However, the difficulty of defeat is the perniciousness of their approach.

As always, privacy takes intelligence.
People with no intelligence will never have privacy.

Just ask criminals who get caught because their red iPhone turned them in.
<https://www.njherald.com/story/news/courts/2023/08/04/hayden-harris-case-life-sentences-fort-drum-soldier-killers/70523170007/>
:)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 22/08/2025 5:30 pm, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 16:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote:

The most reliable is the open source YouTube-replacement named NewPipe.
<https://newpipe.com>

rCLThis Domain Is For SalerCY ...

(After the re-direct to www.hudedomains.com/....) But for just $11,195!!
What a bargain! And they offer a payment plan.
--
Daniel70
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 20:37:31 +1000, Daniel70 wrote :

The most reliable is the open source YouTube-replacement named NewPipe.
<https://newpipe.com>

|This Domain Is For Salei ...

(After the re-direct to www.hudedomains.com/....) But for just $11,195!! What a bargain! And they offer a payment plan.

It is interesting how bad things can go instantly simply by me accidentally typing "com" versus "net", so I apolozie for that typo/thinko mistake.

By now folks should know it should have been <https://newpipe.net> which
is, in my opinion, one of the finest google app replacements out there.
<https://newpipe.net/#download>
<https://archive.newpipe.net/fdroid/repo/NewPipe_v0.28.0.apk>
Name: 20250822_NewPipe_v0.28.0.apk
Size: 12088809 bytes (11 MiB)
SHA256: 06EA3BAB0F56C2CAC0A7C471D43E6D0107104C319ABB589C894C6B0D47D60EF7

Without a Google Account you have more power than with the account.
YouTube app ==> NewPipe
Gmail app ==> FairEmail
Chrome browser ==> Ungoogled Chromium/Bromite
Google Play Store app ==> Aurora Google Play Store app
Google calendar app ==> Etar
Gboard keyboard & stt ==> OpenBoard
Messages ==> PulsSMS (last known good version)
Android App Drawer ==> Muntashirakon App Manager
Google Contacts ==> OpenContacts
Pixel Launcher ==> Nova (last known good version)
etc.

Maps with traffic are about the only thing "harder" to get a full
replacement of without using a Google app. I can do it but most can't.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 23/08/2025 16:28, Stan Brown wrote:

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 08:22:00 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote:

Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >> you don't have to, and never pay for anything.

Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you
get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a
reason why that's a saying everyone knows.

Marketing hype to justify higher prices.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-24 04:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/24 0:37:47, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:17:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube.

If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it right.

So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or
not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted.

I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all
cookies. They have all the history.

I simply use uBlock Origin.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:49:35 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube.

If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it right. >> So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have

expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or
not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted.

I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all
cookies. They have all the history.

I simply use uBlock Origin.

I agree with Carlos' experience where I never saw ads in YouTube when I
used the Epic Privacy Browser (which fell apart in the first week of July)
on Windows.

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but
the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

It takes more than just uBlock Origin to prove you're not a bot, which I've been able to accomplish but where it's an uneasy truce with the algorithm.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:17:28 +0100, wasbit wrote :

Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything >>> you don't have to, and never pay for anything.

Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you
get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a
reason why that's a saying everyone knows.

Marketing hype to justify higher prices.

Agree with wasbit that the classic goal of marketing is to make people jump
to completely unwarranted (but favorable to their product) assumptions.

It's how premium fuel is sold, for example, where people jump to a
completely unwarranted assumption that Chevron gas is better simply because it's advertised to have Techron (which is mostly plain old polyetheramines, which all USA top tier fuels have plenty of).

For decades I (seemingly innocently) nonchalantly ask people and attendants
at the gas pump what's the difference between premium & regular, and I
almost always get the unwarranted assumptions that marketing wants you to
think simply because it costs 50 cents more per gallon out here in
California land.

For most cars, it's actually worse gas (although not meaningfully so), and
yet people pay half a buck more per gallon based on unwarranted assumptions (don't even get me started on similar marketing hype of the iPhone please).

The absurd "you get what you pay for" mantra is pure bullshit IMHO,
designed for low-IQ people, since it's always said by people with
absolutely zero education on the product itself, and therefore who have no
clue about the product as all they know is the price.

The dumber a person is, i.e., the less they know about the product, the
more desperate they seem to be to gauge the product based on a number line.

That number line is often price, but it could be grades such as 'L/XL/GXL'
or 'bronze/silver/gold' or worse, warranty number lines (1yr/2yr/3yr), etc.

The truth is you never get what you pay for.
a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is).
b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/24 14:49:35, Carlos E.R. wrote:

I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all
cookies. They have all the history.

I simply use uBlock Origin.

You have prompted me to read up a bit on uO. I see that, basically, it's
a list-based system, with the advantages and disadvantages that
involves. (The disadvantages include lag, and false positives [including malicious]; there are advantages too.)
uO seems to have other desirable features, such as tracking reduction
and other privacy matters.
Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I
mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what
proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the
person or entity who created the video I am viewing?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/24 16:5:12, Marion wrote:
[]

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

It takes more than just uBlock Origin to prove you're not a bot, which I've been able to accomplish but where it's an uneasy truce with the algorithm.

I was going to say I've never had that, but I think I may have once or
twice - but certainly not often enough for it to be a major irritant.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/24 16:15:54, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 09:17:28 +0100, wasbit wrote :

Which is why the fundamental rule of privacy is to NEVER sign into anything
you don't have to, and never pay for anything.

Like most categorical rules, this is nonsense. It's true that "you
get what you pay for" is not an infallible guide, but there's a
reason why that's a saying everyone knows.

Marketing hype to justify higher prices.

Agree with wasbit that the classic goal of marketing is to make people jump to completely unwarranted (but favorable to their product) assumptions.

[]

The absurd "you get what you pay for" mantra is pure bullshit IMHO,
designed for low-IQ people, since it's always said by people with
absolutely zero education on the product itself, and therefore who have no clue about the product as all they know is the price.

That side is often true ...

[]

The truth is you never get what you pay for.
a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is).
b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.

... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_
cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of
the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to
assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive
product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better
product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is
reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_
there is marketing that has to be paid for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and
undernourishment.
-Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I
mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what
proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the
person or entity who created the video I am viewing?

I just searched and this may be wrong but this is what I found:
Q: How Much Do Creators Earn from YouTube Ads?
A: YouTube uses a revenue-sharing model:
Creators receive 55% of ad revenue.
YouTube keeps 45%.
The amount a creator earns depends on:

CPM (Cost Per Mille): How much advertisers pay per 1,000 ad views.
RPM (Revenue Per Mille):
What creators actually earn per 1,000 video views after YouTube's cut.
If CPM is $5, the creator earns $2.75 per 1,000 monetized views.

Q: Do Viewers Need to Watch the Entire Ad?
A: It depends on the type of ad:
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| Ad Type | Must Be Watched Fully | Revenue Trigger |
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| Skippable ads | No, 30 sec or click | Partial revenue |
| Non-skippable ads | Yes (15-20 sec) | Full revenue |
| Mid-roll ads | Depends on placement | Varies |
| Bumper ads | Yes (6 sec) | Full revenue |
| Overlay ads | Click or interaction | Click-based |
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+

Q: What Affects Earnings?
A: Audience location: U.S., Canada, and Europe tend to have higher CPMs. Content niche:
Finance, tech & education often earn more than entertainment or gaming.
Viewer likes, comments, & watch time boost ad delivery and earnings.

Hmmm... how much are they making off of me then?

I looked up recently my methodology of "subscribing" to YouTube channels,
where I found out the subscription is on my device & only on my device.

That means when I subscribe to a YouTube channel, the YouTube channel
creator receives no up-ticks from me in his all-important reputation.

Also I can "see" comments, but I can't 'add' comments, since you have to be logged into YouTube in order to post comments (and I'm never logged in).

I can do all the normal stuff though, like search and create playlists and download any YouTube video (or rip the audio), just like anyone else can.

As with my subscriptions, the "history" is only on my device though.

As for the advertisements, since there are none, I suspect nothing goes to
the creator in my case, just as with the lack of comments & subscriptions.

But for most people who follow the rules, I'm sure there's a penny or two
going to the content creator every time someone listens fully to an ad.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:56:55 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but >> the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot. >>
It takes more than just uBlock Origin to prove you're not a bot, which I've >> been able to accomplish but where it's an uneasy truce with the algorithm.

I was going to say I've never had that, but I think I may have once or
twice - but certainly not often enough for it to be a major irritant.

Yeah, the "algorithm" is capricious in its application.

I can defeat the algorithm, as it's both Draconian & sophomoric, as shown
in this sequence of browser interactions taken within minutes elapsed time.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpyFGJx9/Clipboard-08-19-2025-01.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cv1kngT/Clipboard-08-19-2025-02.jpg> YT search
<https://i.postimg.cc/ry4crb7k/Clipboard-08-19-2025-03.jpg> YT channel
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wWQJb2z/Clipboard-08-19-2025-04.jpg> You're a bot!
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqcrDkQ0/Clipboard-08-19-2025-05.jpg> Modify bits
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fxXL7BH/Clipboard-08-19-2025-06.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC2R6XP3/Clipboard-08-19-2025-07.jpg> You're no bot

Notice, within minutes, with the same browser, you're unique and a bot.
And then, with browser tweaks, you're again unique, but no longer a bot.

I didn't bother to screenshot that there were no YouTube-inserted ads.
But that's vastly different things to deal with to defeat the "algorithm".

1. Whether or not YouTube thinks you're a bot
2. And whether or not YouTube thinks you're unique

The advantage of YouTube not declaring you a bot is you don't have to log
into any Google/Youtube account; and there is no advantage to me of YouTube thinking I'm unique in terms of ads (since I don't see them in any case).

The only advantrage of being unique each time I watch YouTube is privacy.
Which is why I'm building my own DIY privacy web browser on Windows 10.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:04:34 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

The truth is you never get what you pay for.

a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is).
b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.

... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_
cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of
the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better
product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_
there is marketing that has to be paid for.

Yes, but is a diamond-encrusted Rolex really a better watch than a Timex?
What matters most is how well it tells time - and the Timex wins that spec.

People let marketing tell them what matters, e.g., some people actually buy
a RED!!!!!!!!!! iPhone, which, let's face it, isn't better than black ones.

Marketing's job is to differentiate the product. Any way they can.
Generally, almost all products are commodities.
If not commodities, then they're differentiated by specs.

But you have to know what "spec" matters.

For example, on a battery, the spec is the "juice" that it outputs.
Not the warranty.

The warranty is a marketing gimmick.
Much like biometrics are on mobile devices.

I'm on a lot of tech forums, where, for example, people think that whatever marketing people advertise, "must" be true, e.g., a battery with a 2-year warranty must be better (and more expensive) than one with no warranty.

A "blue" coolant for European cars must be better than the "pink" for
Japanese or the "green" for American cars. If they put a spec of sand in a brake pad versus a spec of copper, then it immediately becomes a fancy
ceramic pad versus a metallic pad (both versus non-asbestos organic), when
what really matters is the cold/hot friction rating which is required, by
law, to be printed on every package in the USA for brake pads.

But even the car parts guys don't understand friction coefficients (even as that's what brake pads do!) so everyone talks about the absurd meaningless perceived (yet imaginary) differences between metallic & ceramic & organic.

Everyone is desperate for a number line to make decisions and MARKETING is always glad to hand you a "good/better/best" number line.

But what really matters in good/better/best is the specifications.
But most people can't handle the fact that things have specs.

Which, is why, as I noted, that people think that the number line of
premium gas being fifty cents more expensive means that it's better.

And yet, it's not.
It's worse (for most engines).

But not measurably worse.
Still, the fifty cents per gallon uptick is a waste of money.

Because it's not better at all.
Which is my point.

The less someone knows about a product, the more they succumb to marketing.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-24 17:05, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 15:49:35 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube. >>>>
If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it right. >>> So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have

expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or
not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted.

I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all
cookies. They have all the history.

I simply use uBlock Origin.

I agree with Carlos' experience where I never saw ads in YouTube when I
used the Epic Privacy Browser (which fell apart in the first week of July)
on Windows.

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

I don't have that problem either.

It takes more than just uBlock Origin to prove you're not a bot, which I've been able to accomplish but where it's an uneasy truce with the algorithm.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 20:31:04 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but >> the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

I don't have that problem either.

I'm curious what happens if you're NOT logged into YouTube, and if you use
a *different* web browser than you normally use (so cookies aren't used).

Say, oh, MullVad or LibreFox Mozilla-based web browsers.
Or, say, oh, Brave or Ungoogled Chromium chrome-based web browsers.

Given my German and Slavic heritage, I watch "adult" war channels, which, apparently due to Russian bot interference, are stricter than most on bots.

These "adult" channels I watch daily, for example, think I'm a bot:
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=denys+davydov>
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rfu+ukraine>

I can trick the algorithm, but if I do nothing, they think I'm a bot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpyFGJx9/Clipboard-08-19-2025-01.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cv1kngT/Clipboard-08-19-2025-02.jpg> YT search
<https://i.postimg.cc/ry4crb7k/Clipboard-08-19-2025-03.jpg> YT channel
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wWQJb2z/Clipboard-08-19-2025-04.jpg> You're a bot!
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqcrDkQ0/Clipboard-08-19-2025-05.jpg> Modify bits
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fxXL7BH/Clipboard-08-19-2025-06.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC2R6XP3/Clipboard-08-19-2025-07.jpg> You're no bot

What's interesting is how Draconian the YouTube bot algorithm is, and yet,
at the same time, how easy it is to trick it, simply because it's stupid.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-24 20:44, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 20:31:04 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but >>> the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot. >>

I don't have that problem either.

I'm curious what happens if you're NOT logged into YouTube, and if you use
a *different* web browser than you normally use (so cookies aren't used).

Say, oh, MullVad or LibreFox Mozilla-based web browsers.
Or, say, oh, Brave or Ungoogled Chromium chrome-based web browsers.

I tried Seamonkey, which I have installed; went to youtube. Accepted
cookies. Got empty search. Searched for a chap I follow, clicked, and
got two adverts. Click skip, play the video. I don't want to watch it entirely, so I don't know if there are more adverts ahead.

Given my German and Slavic heritage, I watch "adult" war channels, which, apparently due to Russian bot interference, are stricter than most on bots.

I watched a video from a Dane analyst on the war, Anders Puck Nielsen.

...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:53:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but >>>> the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

I don't have that problem either.

I'm curious what happens if you're NOT logged into YouTube, and if you use >> a *different* web browser than you normally use (so cookies aren't used).

Say, oh, MullVad or LibreFox Mozilla-based web browsers.
Or, say, oh, Brave or Ungoogled Chromium chrome-based web browsers.

I tried Seamonkey, which I have installed; went to youtube. Accepted cookies. Got empty search. Searched for a chap I follow, clicked, and
got two adverts. Click skip, play the video. I don't want to watch it entirely, so I don't know if there are more adverts ahead.

Thanks for running that test where the ads aren't "my" issue, where my questions are mostly around the topic of this thread someone started.

If you're logged into YouTube already, that's a different test.
If you're NOT logged in, that's the test I'm asking folks to do.

The easiest way is to open an incognito window I guess.
Mozilla: Ctrl+Shift+P
Chrome: Ctrl+Shift+N
If you see your account icon, you're already signed in.
If you can subscribe or comment, you're already signed in.

YouTube should look like it's seeing you for the first time.
Otherwise the test isn't valid for the bot issue we're speaking about.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025/8/24 18:57:59, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

Specifically for YouTube ad.s - the ones before and during videos, I
mean, not any others on the pages anywhere - does anyone know what
proportion of the ad. revenue gets to the content creator, i. e. the
person or entity who created the video I am viewing?

Thanks for looking this up.>

I just searched and this may be wrong but this is what I found:
Q: How Much Do Creators Earn from YouTube Ads?
A: YouTube uses a revenue-sharing model:
Creators receive 55% of ad revenue.
YouTube keeps 45%.

That's actually more generous (to the creators) than I was expecting.

The amount a creator earns depends on:

CPM (Cost Per Mille): How much advertisers pay per 1,000 ad views.
RPM (Revenue Per Mille):
What creators actually earn per 1,000 video views after YouTube's cut.
If CPM is $5, the creator earns $2.75 per 1,000 monetized views.

Yes, that's 55% of 5.>

Q: Do Viewers Need to Watch the Entire Ad?
A: It depends on the type of ad:
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| Ad Type | Must Be Watched Fully | Revenue Trigger |
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+
| Skippable ads | No, 30 sec or click | Partial revenue |
| Non-skippable ads | Yes (15-20 sec) | Full revenue |
| Mid-roll ads | Depends on placement | Varies |
| Bumper ads | Yes (6 sec) | Full revenue |
| Overlay ads | Click or interaction | Click-based |
+-------------------+-----------------------+-------------------+

Seems reasonable.

Q: What Affects Earnings?
A: Audience location: U.S., Canada, and Europe tend to have higher CPMs. Content niche:
Finance, tech & education often earn more than entertainment or gaming.

Finance is always connected to lots of money. I'm surprised the last two
are low, though, and that education is high.

Viewer likes, comments, & watch time boost ad delivery and earnings.

Hmmm... how much are they making off of me then?

I looked up recently my methodology of "subscribing" to YouTube channels, where I found out the subscription is on my device & only on my device.

That means when I subscribe to a YouTube channel, the YouTube channel
creator receives no up-ticks from me in his all-important reputation.

No. I guess if you subscribing makes it show you more of his clips, he'd
get more of any ad.s you see, but as you don't see any, ...

I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it
_does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_
_new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere,
though. (Though I haven't really looked.)>

Also I can "see" comments, but I can't 'add' comments, since you have to be logged into YouTube in order to post comments (and I'm never logged in).

I always am (yes, Google/YouTube will know a lot about me), and not infrequently have conversations there.>

I can do all the normal stuff though, like search and create playlists and download any YouTube video (or rip the audio), just like anyone else can.

As with my subscriptions, the "history" is only on my device though.

As for the advertisements, since there are none, I suspect nothing goes to the creator in my case, just as with the lack of comments & subscriptions.

But for most people who follow the rules, I'm sure there's a penny or two going to the content creator every time someone listens fully to an ad.

I suppose that's part of the reason I don't block: I'm not actually
paying, but the creators are getting something. OK, there are some who
just create for fun, but one or two I think make a living at it.
Obviously, I _am_ paying with my time, but most of the time I don't
resent that, though it _can_ be irritating.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

(See last line before starting your reply.)

On 2025/8/24 19:19:1, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:04:34 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

The truth is you never get what you pay for.

a. You get what you get (which you need to understand what it is).
b. And the dumber you are, the more you will pay for it.

... and b is true, and the latter part of a. But there is in _some_
cases some truth in the old saying. An approximation that works a lot of
the time (nothing beats proper research, but if you're in a hurry) is to
assume it's rubbish if there is heavy marketing of the more expensive
product. But remember, in most cases it costs more to _make_ a better
product (whether a cookie/biscuit or a piece of software), so it is
reasonable to assume that will be reflected in the price - _unless_
there is marketing that has to be paid for.

Yes, but is a diamond-encrusted Rolex really a better watch than a Timex? What matters most is how well it tells time - and the Timex wins that spec.

If telling the time is _all_ you're buying it for, OK. Though I suspect
the strictly mechanical parts of a Rolex - regardless of whether it's
got any diamonds on it - probably _are_ more precisely made than those
in a Timex, but if what I want is time accuracy, I'd almost certainly
buy some cheap electronic device, which is likely to be better than both
of them. Especially if locked to a broadcast reference. As well as more precisely made, the Rolex may be more durable too, and/or better against
say depth (of water) or other things - but that sort of thing is
verifiable by your beloved specs.>

People let marketing tell them what matters, e.g., some people actually buy
a RED!!!!!!!!!! iPhone, which, let's face it, isn't better than black ones.

Not in functionality, no. But there's more to life than that! Though I
agree, actually _paying more_ for a different colour rankles, _if_ they
cost the same to make.>

Marketing's job is to differentiate the product. Any way they can.

Do you call information, marketing? If you do, then I consider that to
have some value. But the vast majority of what most of us think of as marketing, I dislike (and with me - and IANA - excessive marketing is counter-productive: if I become aware that something is being
excessively marketed, I will actively avoid that product!).

Generally, almost all products are commodities.
If not commodities, then they're differentiated by specs.

But you have to know what "spec" matters.

For example, on a battery, the spec is the "juice" that it outputs.

That's not the _only_ one though.

Not the warranty.

The warranty is a marketing gimmick.

Batteries (and cells) can have the same capacity (in joules, or [milli]watt-hours if you prefer), and even the same maximum current
capacity (important for car batteries), and yet differ in non-obvious
ways: for example, electrodes made in such a way that discourages thread growth, by texture or even just simply by separation: that can affect
how long it lasts. There _can_ be some correlation between that and the guarantee. Of course, real results from consumer tests are better, if
you can get them.

For guarantees on e. g. devices, I tend to ignore stated guarantees, and
rely on the UK "sale of goods" act, which says things must be "of
merchantable quality".

Much like biometrics are on mobile devices.

you may think so (and I don't think I have any that have such -
certainly not a fobile moan); security enthusiasts might disagree with
you.>

I'm on a lot of tech forums, where, for example, people think that whatever marketing people advertise, "must" be true, e.g., a battery with a 2-year warranty must be better (and more expensive) than one with no warranty.

It's better if you can find out _why_ it is better.

A "blue" coolant for European cars must be better than the "pink" for Japanese or the "green" for American cars. If they put a spec of sand in a

Why? (Do they claim it is? Do they cost different amounts?)

brake pad versus a spec of copper, then it immediately becomes a fancy ceramic pad versus a metallic pad (both versus non-asbestos organic), when what really matters is the cold/hot friction rating which is required, by law, to be printed on every package in the USA for brake pads.

Again, the obvious spec. isn't the only one. Different materials may
have the same braking ability initially, but decrease in effectiveness
as they warm up; and assuming they _all_ do, certain materials - and/or
designs - may not warm up as fast in use. So don't just look at one spec.!>

But even the car parts guys don't understand friction coefficients (even as that's what brake pads do!) so everyone talks about the absurd meaningless perceived (yet imaginary) differences between metallic & ceramic & organic.

The store robot (human variety), probably on minimum wage, doesn't
necessarily; some may know their onions. And yes, some even though
they've been in the job for decades are as clueless as anyone (and will regurgitate marketing hype - and, also, what other people have told
them). Identify them if you can, so you can ignore them!>

Everyone is desperate for a number line to make decisions and MARKETING is always glad to hand you a "good/better/best" number line.

Of course; that's part of their job.>

But what really matters in good/better/best is the specifications.
But most people can't handle the fact that things have specs.

Certainly, those with the time/expertise look at the spec.s - but you
have to look at _all_ the spec.s, and see what compromises suit _you_.
For example, if you're into racing (or similar), certain brake pads may actually be worth it for you - but, although they _are_ better in
absolute terms, the extra price may not be _worthwhile_ for another user.>

Which, is why, as I noted, that people think that the number line of
premium gas being fifty cents more expensive means that it's better.

And yet, it's not.
It's worse (for most engines).

But not measurably worse.
Still, the fifty cents per gallon uptick is a waste of money.

Because it's not better at all.
Which is my point.

The less someone knows about a product, the more they succumb to marketing.

There's more to life than _just_ value for money though. Some people may
_feel better_ because they have diamonds on their watch, or a blue car;
always seeking only VFM can sometimes blind some people to that. It'd be
a boring world if we were all the same. (I would _prefer_ not to have a silver/grey car, as it'd be easier to find in the car park!)
I think we're both mostly arguing for the sake of it, and should stop -
it's certainly almost entirely OT for these three 'groups.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 24/08/2025 14:49, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 2025-08-24 04:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/24 0:37:47, Marion wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 21:17:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

But back to what I never see... I never see an ad inserted by YouTube.

If anyone else is seeing YouTube-inserted ads, they're not doing it
right.

So what do you think you're doing different? As I say, I wouldn't have
expected being unique every time to affect whether they're inserted or
not - onlu which ones _are_ inserted.

I don't see adds in youtube. I am not logged in, and I allow all
cookies. They have all the history.

I simply use uBlock Origin.

+1
But I do get a 10 second wait before the video shows.
uBlock Origin also removes a lot of commercial (as opposed to private)
ads inserted in Facebook Marketplace.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 24/08/2025 19:44, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 20:31:04 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but >>> the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot. >>

I don't have that problem either.

I'm curious what happens if you're NOT logged into YouTube, and if you use
a *different* web browser than you normally use (so cookies aren't used).

Say, oh, MullVad or LibreFox Mozilla-based web browsers.
Or, say, oh, Brave or Ungoogled Chromium chrome-based web browsers.

Given my German and Slavic heritage, I watch "adult" war channels, which, apparently due to Russian bot interference, are stricter than most on bots.

These "adult" channels I watch daily, for example, think I'm a bot:
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=denys+davydov>
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rfu+ukraine>

I can trick the algorithm, but if I do nothing, they think I'm a bot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/rpyFGJx9/Clipboard-08-19-2025-01.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/8cv1kngT/Clipboard-08-19-2025-02.jpg> YT search
<https://i.postimg.cc/ry4crb7k/Clipboard-08-19-2025-03.jpg> YT channel
<https://i.postimg.cc/3wWQJb2z/Clipboard-08-19-2025-04.jpg> You're a bot!
<https://i.postimg.cc/YqcrDkQ0/Clipboard-08-19-2025-05.jpg> Modify bits
<https://i.postimg.cc/9fxXL7BH/Clipboard-08-19-2025-06.jpg> You're unique
<https://i.postimg.cc/QC2R6XP3/Clipboard-08-19-2025-07.jpg> You're no bot

What's interesting is how Draconian the YouTube bot algorithm is, and yet,
at the same time, how easy it is to trick it, simply because it's stupid.

From your link I watched
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9QOd7C5iVg
with Mullvad browser (13.5.2 because my main OS is W8.1).
I got the normal pop-up asking me to sign in & accept/reject cookies,
which I rejected.
Video started playing immediately. I only watched for about 20 seconds.
--
Regards
wasbit
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-25 05:28, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 23:53:46 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

The problem that caused YouTube to be an issue wasn't that lack of ads but
the fact that it required people to log in to prove that they're not a bot.

I don't have that problem either.

I'm curious what happens if you're NOT logged into YouTube, and if you use >>> a *different* web browser than you normally use (so cookies aren't used). >>>
Say, oh, MullVad or LibreFox Mozilla-based web browsers.
Or, say, oh, Brave or Ungoogled Chromium chrome-based web browsers.

I tried Seamonkey, which I have installed; went to youtube. Accepted
cookies. Got empty search. Searched for a chap I follow, clicked, and
got two adverts. Click skip, play the video. I don't want to watch it
entirely, so I don't know if there are more adverts ahead.

Thanks for running that test where the ads aren't "my" issue, where my questions are mostly around the topic of this thread someone started.

Adds were present because I did not bother to install an add blocker for
the test. They are not a problem for me in FFx.

If you're logged into YouTube already, that's a different test.
If you're NOT logged in, that's the test I'm asking folks to do.

Not logged in.

The easiest way is to open an incognito window I guess.
Mozilla: Ctrl+Shift+P
Chrome: Ctrl+Shift+N
If you see your account icon, you're already signed in.
If you can subscribe or comment, you're already signed in.

YouTube should look like it's seeing you for the first time.
Otherwise the test isn't valid for the bot issue we're speaking about.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On 2025-08-25 05:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/8/24 18:57:59, Marion wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:50:47 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote :

...

That means when I subscribe to a YouTube channel, the YouTube channel
creator receives no up-ticks from me in his all-important reputation.

No. I guess if you subscribing makes it show you more of his clips, he'd
get more of any ad.s you see, but as you don't see any, ...

I've often wondered what subscribing _does_ do; I _presume_ it means it _does_ give you more from that channel. (Maybe even it gives you _every_ _new_ post from that channel.) I've not seen it actually say anywhere, though. (Though I haven't really looked.)>

You get told when there is a new video on that channel.

...
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote at 08:13 this Friday (GMT):

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:04:55 +0100, wasbit wrote :

Presume you meant Newpipe.net
- https://newpipe.net/

Oh. Thanks again. You keep catching me on inadvertent faux pas! :)

Over the years, I think I've tried every YouTube replacement app ever suggested on the Android ng, including SkyTube, SmartTube, YouTube Vanced/Revanced, Invidious, FreeTube, PipePipe, Seal, ClipGrab (yt-dlp/youtube-dl), etc., where I find that NewPipe (.net!) is the
generally best, although they're each not equally the same functionality.

Bear in mind I have over a thousand packages on my 64GB Android phone, and yet I have no Google Account so I don't use YouTube on Android, and even
so, I can watch anything I want to watch on both Android & on Windows.

We just need to be intelligent about it - and - we need to do some work.

I personally use Invidious (subscribing to channels with RSS) and it's
worked pretty well for me. USUALLY the outages are fixed within a day of Youtube messing it up.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:40:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote :

We just need to be intelligent about it - and - we need to do some work.

I personally use Invidious (subscribing to channels with RSS) and it's
worked pretty well for me. USUALLY the outages are fixed within a day of Youtube messing it up.

For those lurking, what CandyCaneArter is talking about is an "app" that replaces the "Youtube app" on Android (he's not discussing a 'browser').

The apps act "like" browsers in that they utilize the public YouTube API.
The important point here is there is no "agreement" to sign or to respect.

That's because the "apps" use the public API (much like browsers do).
The apps are all open source (AFAIK) so YouTube knows EXACTLY how they work and, it seems once or twice a year, YouTube screws up their public API.

With that in mind, I agree that once or twice a year, the YouTube app replacements suddenly break, en masse, which is usually an indication that "youtube changed something" in the public API that the apps have to fix.

As you noted, they generally issue that API fix within a few days.

Most people don't realize that YouTube has a "public web page" that does
not ask you to sign any agreements, which is the "public API" to YouTube.

All these YouTube replacement programs are great because you get freedom
from YouTube spying, as each person comes in as a unique person every time.

The subscriptions are local.
The watch lists are local.

It's like how Apple tries to do the iPhone by keeping privacy local.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:00:35 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote :

If you're logged into YouTube already, that's a different test.
If you're NOT logged in, that's the test I'm asking folks to do.

Not logged in.

Thanks for running that test.
a. When wasbit ran that test, it asked him to sign in;
b. When you ran it, it didn't ask you to sign in;
c. When I ran it, it first asked - then I tweaked - then it let me in.

I think that's the whole point of the OP's request about signing in.

Some of us don't need to sign in. Others do.
As for me, it will ask me to sign in but I tweak a few switches.

And then I can watch the "adult" YouTube war channel w/o signing in.
As with most Draconian yet sophomoric algorithms, YMMV.

That's what the OP was asking about, I think, in the first place.
We've pretty much proved that what happens depends on each of our setups.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.windows7.general

On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:41:43 +0100, wasbit wrote :

From your link I watched
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9QOd7C5iVg
with Mullvad browser (13.5.2 because my main OS is W8.1).
I got the normal pop-up asking me to sign in & accept/reject cookies,
which I rejected.
Video started playing immediately. I only watched for about 20 seconds.

Thanks for running that test.
Your test confirms what many people are seeing.

I suspect most who are not seeing the sign in prompt, are not seeing it
because they're already signed in (but it's hard to tell if they even know whether or not they're signed in, but Carlos tested it w/o being signed
in).

So, as with most capriciously Draconian yet sophomoric algorithms, YMMV.

I think that's the whole point of the original poster's issue.
Most of the time lately, YouTube will ask you to sign in (if not already).

For me, since I have no account to sign into, most of the time it asks me
to sign in also. But I refuse to sign in. Which is my wont.

But I still want to watch the video.
So I tweak a few things in the web browser.

And then it lets me watch the video without signing in.
I think that's the whole point of this thread, after all.

Note on Android I don't get the sign-in prompt because NewPipe fakes it.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2