Yes. The thing is that then you are no longer anonymously using yt-dlp.
The next step would be trying to detect that case… maybe adding captchas when there’s even a slight suspicion.
Perhaps even to the point of banning users (and then I hope you did not rely on the same account for gmail or others).
It’ll be a cat and mouse situation. Similar as it happened with Twitter, there are also third party apps, but many gave up.
If you don’t like it, vote with your wallet
I’d say more: don’t use Youtube if you don’t like it.
It’s very hypocritical to see how everyone bashes at Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Uber, etc. and yet they continue using it as if life would be hell without the luxury of those completelly non essential brands. If you truly don’t like them, just let them die… look for alternatives. Supporting an alternative is what’s gonna hurt them the most if what you actually want is to force them to change.
There’s also a lot of videos from rich Youtube creators complaining about Youtube policies, and yet most of them don’t even try to set up channels on alternative platforms. Many creators have enough resources to even launch their own private video podcast services, and yet only very few do anything close to even attempt that.
From the actual regulation text:
the concept of ‘illegal content’ should broadly reflect the existing rules in the offline environment. In particular, the concept of ‘illegal content’ should be defined broadly to cover information relating to illegal content, products, services and activities. In particular, that concept should be understood to refer to information, irrespective of its form, that under the applicable law is either itself illegal, such as illegal hate speech or terrorist content and unlawful discriminatory content, or that the applicable rules render illegal in view of the fact that it relates to illegal activities. Illustrative examples include the sharing of images depicting child sexual abuse, the unlawful non-consensual sharing of private images, online stalking, the sale of non-compliant or counterfeit products, the sale of products or the provision of services in infringement of consumer protection law, the non-authorised use of copyright protected material, the illegal offer of accommodation services or the illegal sale of live animals. In contrast, an eyewitness video of a potential crime should not be considered to constitute illegal content, merely because it depicts an illegal act, where recording or disseminating such a video to the public is not illegal under national or Union law. In this regard, it is immaterial whether the illegality of the information or activity results from Union law or from national law that is in compliance with Union law and what the precise nature or subject matter is of the law in question.
So, both.
Yes, I got your point. Mine was that many of the things we do (specially online) cannot be protected by trying to keep it “secret” in the way you previously described. Because they often involve a “Bob”, even if it’s one we sometimes don’t even notice.
So it makes sense for someone to try and look for ways to at least get some level of protection from Alices in other ways than just “don’t tell Bob” even if they might not be flawless (you gave some examples of such ways in that last response).
That’s true, though personally I find a sort of warm feeling about the idea of my messages and content I produced being available for my descendants, beyond just my bank account.
I wish I had a way to see how my great-grandparents were. What their life was like. That I could check out conversations they had in a public forum. Or see what hobbies they had… but life back then left no traces, so their thoughts were lost to time after my grandparents and my father went away. If they wrote any letters they were lost. So I’d be ok if one day one of my descendants has a way to see what accounts I used and they come upon this message when wondering about me. Like a time-traveling high-five from past-me to my relatives.
When Bob is active part of what you don’t want Alice to know, it doesn’t matter whether you “tell” Bob or not, he knows.
You can try and hide it from him, add layers like an onion, but even that isn’t necessarily a failproof guarantee that you left no trace, even onions can be peeled or holes pierced.
Systemd “enabled” services are literal symlinks… whenever a target runs, it tries to start also all the service files on its “wants” directory.
You can literally enable any service for next boot by making a symlink in /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/ (or whichever other target you want it to run on) as root (and installation scripts are run as root).
ln -s /usr/lib/systemd/system/whatever.service /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/whatever.service
You mean “confidentiality”, not privacy.
Just the metadata related to whether you personally, traceable to your full name and address, have a Signal account and how much you use it might be considered a privacy breach already, even if the content of the messages is confidential.