>>1656 You can do that with youtube-viewer as well without any jewscript. The point of invidio.us is everyone use the same proxy, that makes it hard to id users.

>>1643 yes we agree anon.

>>1661 >The point of invidio.us is everyone use the same proxy, that makes it hard to id users So the TORfag mentality? Doesn't work imo.

>>1686 <So the TORfag mentality? Doesn't work imo. Go back to pigchan, nigger. 8gaggers will love your kind there.

>>1686 >imo <imo >imo <imo >imo

It's browser related, dunno if it would be better to make a new thread for it (someone else could do it if it is) >Waterfox sold to system1, an ad company [https://archive.ph/cDxkv] https://www.waterfox.net/blog/waterfox-has-joined-system1/

>>1686 >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO STOP USING ACRONYMS THAT ARE AT LEAST 20 YEARS OLD

>>1703 Is there any point to Waterfox since even the Windows builds of FF are primarily 64 bit?

What kind of web proxy do you use with your browser?

>>1707 It has a different name.

>>1709 Tor with Tor Browser.

>>1686 >Doesn't work imo. At least attempt to justify your wrong and uninformed opionion.

To quote Matt A. Tobin, developer of Unified XUL Platform: > YouTube never supported Pale Moon, only Google Chrome and their controlled opposition (Firefox). Tor Project has a strong relationship with Mozilla (e.g. "Tor Uplift"), so no, Tor Browser isn't the alternative.

>>2024 > YouTube never supported Pale Moon, only Google Chrome and their controlled opposition (Firefox). Browsers don't need support from some company's website, including Google's YouTube in order to display it's content properly. This quote is beyond ridiculous. Browsers like Epiphany (GNOME Web now) or Midori still load YouTube's JavaScript properly, despite it "not being made" for them. Anyway, why would you even care about YouTube's support being deprecated in an Basilisk-based browser? The engine wasn't meant to be modern in the first place and it's not like you've should be watching nu-YouTube on it's official website. Past anons already said that it's best to just simply use Invidious or youtube-dl, which are much better alternatives for watching JewTube in the current year. >Tor Project has a strong relationship with Mozilla (e.g. "Tor Uplift") You've never actually read Tor's or TBB's source code, did you? First learn how x actually fucking works, then finally start implying that it's compromised while providing strong arguments with sources to them. Btw. Pale Moon also had a "strong relationship" with Mozilla once and a lot of Mozilla's code in the latest Pale Moon builds still hasn't been changed or audited. Does it too make it too compromised? >so no, Tor Browser isn't the alternative. I bet you've even posted this from your bare IP or some untrustworthy VPN. Sucks to be you. Actually, in fact what you're even doing here? This imageboard has it's own official .onion v3 address and that definitely makes it compromised and glow in the dark! For supporting something that Tor Project (Mozilla in your opinion) has made... what a disgrace!

>>2035 >Browsers like Epiphany (GNOME Web now) or Midori still load YouTube's JavaScript properly, despite it "not being made" for them. Fun fact: those two browsers use WebKit, which is what Blink (Google Chrome's engine) is based on. Needless to say, some of what Blink does is then ported to WebKit, essentially making every WebKit-based browser a clone of Google Chrome. >You've never actually read Tor's or TBB's source code, did you? Tor Browser is a version of Firefox though. Mozilla is also accepting changes in the browser to accomodate the needs of the Tor Browser, so yes, it has strong relationships with Mozilla. It's not compromised in terms of security (probably), but it's compromised in that Mozilla follows Google, giving it pretty much a monopoly over what can be done on the web.

>tfw no musl tbb https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/23117

"Because fuck web standards and shit."

>>2045 It's a "living standard" now. They don't even pretend to follow anything anymore. Whatever google shits out is the standard. New browser same problem. Fuck IE

>jewtube doesn't work- works for me? have you tried either updating and or changing your user agent? you really should be using an alternative portal anyway, youtube's main website is bloat

>>2041 just...like....recompile it..

>>2050 >eye am illiterate

>>2038 >Fun fact: those two browsers use WebKit, which is what Blink (Google Chrome's engine) is based on. Wrong. Blink is based on WebKit's component called WebCore, which was originally a fork of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE. >Tor Browser is a version of Firefox though. is a fork* >Mozilla is also accepting changes in the browser to accomodate the needs of the Tor Browser, so yes, it has strong relationships with Mozilla. When did I project that it doesn't have a strong relationship with Mozilla? Anyway, Tor Project has putted too much work into TBB. If they had the resources to switch to anything better, they would do so. Especially if you consider the fact about Tor Project having to remove all of Firefox ESR's components that is spyware. >>2046 That is sadly the truth, but at least you can edit the source code. If they'll ever take this right from me, then I'll definitely give up.

>>2071 which are spyware*

>>2071 >Wrong. Blink is based on WebKit's component called WebCore, which was originally a fork of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE. And then Google contributes back to WebCore, making WebKit, which uses WebCore, a "clone" of Blink, which in turn makes all WebKit-based browser "clone" of Google Chrome. It's ok to be pedantic, but don't lose the important bits, please. >When did I project that it doesn't have a strong relationship with Mozilla? When you thought that someone saying that Tor has strong relationships with Mozilla means the whole thing is compromised (which doesn't make sense and no one said anything like that.) It's right here in >>2035, please re-read it. You are answering to >>2024, quoting this part: "Tor Project has a strong relationship with Mozilla (e.g. "Tor Uplift")". You are not explicitly saying that there are no ties, but it sure came off as such. Maybe you should've used a different quote. >Especially if you consider the fact about Tor Project having to remove all of Firefox ESR's components that is spyware. Wouldn't moving to a browser with no spyware by default make things easier for them? I mean, if you have to put X hours to remove spyware before you are able to actually work on the important things, then moving to something without spyware means you can put those X hours into the important things, essentially giving you more resources. UXP (Unified XUL Platform) doesn't have built-in spyware (yes, I read the source code), meaning the Tor project could use the platform to build a browser on top of it, without wasting time removing things that aren't there to begin with.

>>2056 >Right now it isn't possible to run the pre-compiled tor browser bundle on musl libc >pre-compiled it's opensource and all you need to do to compile it is run ./configure and then make && make install. gitgud faggot. If you don't know how to compile shit, why are you running musl in the first fucking place?

Why is it that freetube (https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube) which says they scrape from the invidious API, can playback resolutions above 720p all the way up to 4k, but none of the public browser site instances of invidious can playback above 720p resolution?

>>2552 invidious is just youtube-dl, basically any scraper can manage above 720p but don't because everything above 720p requires manual mixing of video and audio streams. where as anything below 720p is just handed in a ez pz single video file that they can just redirect to. tl;dr: every site is just lazy and wants to cheap out on server costs

>>1651 >UI had tons of soul >Can customize it for personal look >Many things were heavily customizable >powerful annotation feature >Video responses GOOGLE DELENDA EST! >>1655 If you find the way to make the internet magical again, share it with us. We all want to go back. >>1707 >Waterfox It has a version that continues XUL support instead of the shitty webextension engine being forced upon regular FF users. It's still cancer but it's like stage 1, non-malignant (for now) skin cancer rather than stage 4 terminal, "you're gonna die in a few days" brain cancer that is regular FF. I only still use Waterfox because I have already hardened my profile and I can't bebothered trying to screw other browsers and chrome, even ungoogled-chromium sucks. In fact, there's no decent browser right now and won't be until the internet reformed and all the cancer going on right now is removed.

>>2560 >requires manual mixing of video and audio streams. That sounds complicated but you can just put two source tags in one video tag and be done with it. I can't see the "additional costs". They just are niggers.

>>2677 The web will never be reformed it will only get worse. Types of sites are now on sight banned. /tech/ has always been right. The future is a nigger.

jewtube on PM still works dude lol

>>2680 I was looking into building a site like this around the time hooktube went down. IIRC this doesn't work because any library that can mux separate audio and video streams together requires you to use XHR requests to grab the video and audio data, and CORS/SOP will prevent you from doing that unless you're whitelisted by the googlevideo.com servers. tl;dr web browsers include a form of drm by default which prevents you from grabbing data from other sites in a practical way

Everyone who uses jewtube is a normalfaggot, prove me wrong.

>>2919 I can't

>>2919 Then you are missing out on a lot of good content brother. Sorry but not everyone in the world is a tech savvy moralist.

>>2923 Hence normalfaggot or just another botnet NPC node

>>1483 >this thread is still getting bumped I use Palemoon for Jewtube alright. Description and comments are getting glitched, but I can still browse. Just use OpenWith addon so you can easily click and watch videos that way. (I've been doing this for at least a year now. I hate their video player regardless of the browser you use.) There's also SMPlayer/SMTube if you want to just search and don't care about Jewtube's shitty recommendations. If youtube-dl stops working and you've already updated it, remember to clear the cache. youtube-dl --rm-cache-dir >>1527 Try Iridium. https://iridiumbrowser.de/

Invidious and youtube-dl are both fucking gay. None of them can download full hd videos and invidious is slow as shit nowadays and break every 2 videos.

>>2952 You're a fucking retard. /tech/ boards are full of fucking retards. We need a /prog/ board where people like this aren't allowed to post.

Invidious is turning into a crock of shit bros. Snail speed, break every 2 videos and sometimes the search bar doesn't even work.

>>2953 what's your problem?

>>2952 ytdl works on my machine, nigger >>2954 >not using straw-viewer >>2953 This. How can screening be done anonymously, though?

Based furfag stopping Patreon donations https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24600

>>2957 What the fuck i love furfag now.

>>2954 Yeah, I have the same issues. >>2956 >straw-viewer First time I've heard of it. Seems like they use the invidious API, so wouldn't it have the same breakage problem?

>>2972 Try it out. It is light

>>2973 Yeah I'm testing it out now. Seems slick, like a better, terminal-based version of freetube. Very nice.

>>2975 Good to know. There is a catch, video are streamed from jewgle servers directly, not proxied via invidious.

>>2976 Invidous doesn't proxy video streams by default. I think it's an option instance owners can enable, but it will be disabled for all public instances because of the bandwidth requirements.