cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685

EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says

Hello,

Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore.

If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..

This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don’t abuse them since the number is really low.

Feel free to discuss this politely on Matrix or IRC.

  • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    1311·
    1 month ago

    Well, we start by referring ta work not as “content”, but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
      183·
      1 month ago

      … Which is a type of content.

      There’s a lot of content that doesn’t fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.

      • ElectricMachman@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        But don’t you think it’s a bit reductionist? We read books, not analogue text content. We eat meals, not nutritional content. We listen to songs, not rhythmic euphoria content. I don’t think it’s about commercial concerns - in fact, the term ‘content’ to refer to anything and everything is the ‘commercial’ way of putting it.

        Someone hitting ‘record’ on a microphone and jamming on a guitar is still music. Why should we treat video any differently?

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          It’s a technical term, we may not use it in everyday conversation, but it is the correct term.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      164·
      1 month ago

      Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣

      His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it’s called content for a reason.