[tor-talk] Revisiting youtube blocking TBB, virtually all 1st attempts to load YT

[bo0od]

yes invidious = invidio.us that what i was referring. It has onion v3/v2 
and https with many instances running it.

joebtfsplk at gmx.com:
> @ bo0od, not sure I follow.  Invidious means likely to cause unhappiness
> or be unpleasant.
> Does that have any relationship to invidio.us or similar sites?
> 
> Yes, you can D/L the videos, but you first have to get the URL.  I guess
> if you saw a link on another site, your suggestion might make sense.  Or
> if you use a proxy or VPN with regular Firefox - if YT worked with them.
> 
> On 3/4/20 2:55 PM, Matthew Finkel wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:49:16PM -0600, joebtfsplk at gmx.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> I assume this means you are running Tor Browser in non-private browser
>> mode? Otherwise clearing the cache before restarting shouldn't have any
>> effect.
> Yes, I don't consider YT an adversary or even a site to keep health
> information secret, etc.
> I'm usually looking for how to "fix something" that I had nothing to do
> with breaking. :)
> 
> I'm assuming that unless I suddenly started getting an out of proportion
> percent of what YT considers bad or suspicious exits, something that
> stores in (memory) cache, causes them to continue rejecting new exits,
> until I clear the cache.
> 
> I haven't tried clearing it manually, then recording how often new
> circuits vs. identities are successful.
> 
> To see the percent of success that clearing the cache has with a new
> circuit or new identity (don't set cookies on YT).
> I went a couple of yrs at least, with very few access problems - not
> just on YT, but most technical sites I visit.  For me, it's not a huge %
> increase of sites now blocking TBB, but a noticeable up tick.
> 
>>
>> [snip]
>>> YT / Google could also have changed their policy - again - how they were
>>> going to treat TBB or changed their definition of "abuse," so now there
>>> are many more sites meeting their criteria of abusive.
>>>
>> This is our current assumption, but we don't have any more information
>> than what you described and our personal experiences.
>