PSA on privuhcy
-
This post did not contain any content.
"everything after the ? Symbol can be removed without issue" is a bold statement to make. Reminds me when the TV news had a specialist telling people to look at urls before clicking and check if it ends with ".php" as that would mean it is a virus.
-
I've been using URL Check on Android to clean links of crap like this.
There's also Léon the URL Cleaner.
-
"everything after the ? Symbol can be removed without issue" is a bold statement to make. Reminds me when the TV news had a specialist telling people to look at urls before clicking and check if it ends with ".php" as that would mean it is a virus.
Difference being that the ? in URLs separates the resource from additional information
So unless some website decides to identify the resource in those query field (for example search results pages in a web search), you are generally safe
In any case, messaging apps will try to navigate to the site to create a caption for your message, and that can be a way to check if it works or not
-
This post did not contain any content.
Don't some browsers do this automatically?
-
Only on "I have really bad SEO" kinds of blogs. Query strings have been considered a negative thing for many many years.
Youtube has the video ID as a query parameter, to use the most obvious example...
-
This post did not contain any content.
This tip really doesn't let me down, turns around and desert me
-
Saying "be the change you want to see" doesn't resolve any of the raised concerns.
You don't think the link I give helps potential viewers by showing there is content out there?
-
Call me back when the experience as a content creator is not a nightmare, the experience as a user browsing for content is not a nightmare, when it can handle the load of an even moderately popular video.
The issue with streaming video online is not a technical one; making a "clone" of youtube, anyone can do so (and indeed, peertube exists). The issue with streaming video online is that if it gets traction, you need a lot of bandwidth and processing power to make it available when it needs to be available. One-two instances and "hopping P2P picks up" does not cut it.
And, as usual when anyone says anything bad about peertube: the idea is great, but almost by construction it lacks what's needed to be a valid replacement for centralized, yet HUGE existing platforms: traction, and a truckload of CDN-like instances that can handle the load. If someone putting highly anticipated content online could just "put" their video somewhere and send a link so people can watch it, immediately, and without issue, some would likely do so. Unfortunately, we're very far from that yet.
I did some live streams in the past. I share the link to my instance below. I can't speak for large audiences.
-
"everything after the ? Symbol can be removed without issue" is a bold statement to make. Reminds me when the TV news had a specialist telling people to look at urls before clicking and check if it ends with ".php" as that would mean it is a virus.
Youtube.com/watch?v=[Video ID]
-
You don't think the link I give helps potential viewers by showing there is content out there?
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not exactly a vibrant community it's basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
-
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not exactly a vibrant community it's basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's not a "community" it's a video server. I'm sharing video content I made.
I could open up the federation aspect and letting you and others comment, helping it to scale, but for now I chose not to.
There are PeerTube instances doing that though, i.e. federating, allowing comments from the instance, other instances, also content that is paid for. My instance though again is not like that.
I find it surprising that someone on Lemmy makes assumption about centralization and consequently homogenization. My instance does NOT try to reproduce YouTube yet I believe, I hope at least, does provide again potential "content" to viewers. It's never going to be YouTube but for me that's OK, in fact I would argue, that's better.
Edit: initial comment made no reference to a "community" FWIW.
-
Don't some browsers do this automatically?
I would assume there's an extendion/add-on for than already
-
This post did not contain any content.
No no no no, keep em up, I can hack them and decrypt and do nasty things with that silly part of
codelink, to learn so much about our lovely friendship. And I promise I would never use that to harm You, really! hahahahahahahahaa -
No no no no, keep em up, I can hack them and decrypt and do nasty things with that silly part of
codelink, to learn so much about our lovely friendship. And I promise I would never use that to harm You, really! hahahahahahahahaaOh source from newsletters? emails? oh that means You actively are using email adres, do any big spam company want validated email adres they can spam on? yeah, sure, 0.30€ each! (afaik, black market value is 100-600€ per 1000 valid addresses, just searched)
Tbh, unsure if si=Aa1Uc_fRHXC0ay85 or similars can be decrypted, or are just individual, one time identificators, never tried, but bet some do know how to pull value out of them.
-
I would assume there's an extendion/add-on for than already
Yes, at least for Firefox:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Telling people to remove them isn’t very practical. Educating people is step 1, but step 2 is finding a browser extension or browser that scrubs the identifiers from URLs. You will inevitably forget to remove the tracker from the url if you do it manually.
-
There are many URLs that require parameters to load a resource (and aren’t necessarily tracking anything). With YouTube’s non-shortened links (for example), the video ID is after the
?, but is usually (but not always) immediately after.This:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQCan be shortened to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQBut no shorter.
(actually, you can remove the
www.but that’s not relevant for illustrating my point)LOL: thank you Voyager or Lemmy.world for stripping it even from my inline code.
Here’s what I was trying to post:
But no shorter
-
But no shorter
yes, YouTube has shorter URL schemes, but given the scheme I was showing, the part after the
?can’t be removed -
yes, YouTube has shorter URL schemes, but given the scheme I was showing, the part after the
?can’t be removedI know, I was joking
-
I know, I was joking
/c/whoosh
