how to use youtube?

[TomB]

In another thread I was referred to a youtube video about a man making gibs.

Watch Keith Rucker on youtube making a cross slide Gib for his Monarch Lathe, very informative.
Cast iron would be my choice.

I was very impressed by what he was doing and wanted to watch the whole series. However I found that I would start to watch one video and then it would break off and I'd be shown a political ad. I was not offended by the ad (I had given the lady money last week) but having the adds break up the video sequence was aggravating. But even more aggravating was that there was no way to get back to the video. Then at the end of the video I would be taken off to some other video by Rocker that had nothing to do with the topic I was trying to see,

So my question 'Is there a way to watch a series of videos on youtube that are all part of single project?' I wanted to see the videos of him rebuilding a Monarch lathe but regardless of what I tried I just saw political video ads intersperced between clips on him rebuilding a metal planer,

[jcfx]

Youtube has it's own algorithms that determine what you like based on what you
click to watch, and I think, not confirmed, but seems to be my experience ,
they will also use the cookies in your browser to target ads and content at you.
So if you frequent political sites, the ads you'll see will be political, machining sites, machining related ads etc.
A lot of Youtube content is sponsored too, the creator uploads content, and they receive some of the ad revenue.

Try deleting all you browser cookies, mind you it will require you to re log in to sites you frequent or use the most.
One trick I do is delete all cookies, quit the browser, reboot the browser and keep the cookies tab open as
I re log in to places like this forum to see what the cookies are, so in the future I can selectively nuke cookies.

Installing ad blockers/tracking blockers help, I use one called little snitch, and at times it becomes a whack a mole
game where i either allow or deny connection requests either forever or temporarily,
it's quite interesting to see how much data is passed back and forth
when you visit a site.

It's a crap shoot unfortunately, nothing is free in the internet anymore and sounding like a tin foil hat wearer,
we've become the product not the customer.

[Steggy]

In another thread I was referred to a youtube video about a man making gibs...However I found that I would start to watch one video and then it would break off and I'd be shown a political ad.

Regrettably, this ad malarkey started after Google took over U-Toobe. One anti-dote I have is each time I close my browser (SeaMonkey) the cookies that were accumulated during the session are deleted. SeaMonkey and some other non-Microsoft browsers have this ability. I enhanced this capability by using a DOS shell script to start SeaMonkey. When SeaMonkey terminates the script "scrubs" the subdirectory in cookies have been stored. All this monkey-motion doesn't totally eliminate the problem, but it does reduce it to a (mostly) tolerable level.

Incidentally, if you are on a PC and use Internet Explorer for browsing you will be more exposed to this crud than with third-party browsers, such as Firefox. That said, I absolutely do not recommend the use of Chrome, as it is spyware that keeps Google informed of your browsing habits. In fact, I have, over the years, discouraged my clients from using Google's search engine. With Google, it's all about selling advertising, not producing in-context results. Adding insult to injury, Google mines your search patterns to find ways to throw more advertising at you.

[mcostello]

Want to try something interesting........... search for something today. Search for same thing tomorrow and get totally different results, sometimes the previous days result is not there anymore. Sounds like Someone else coughed up more money that day.

[earlgo]

For the PC and Win10 I have had good, not perfect, luck with an adblocker called 'AdBlocker Ultimate' available from the Microsoft Store.
I don't watch youtube all that often but have never been interrupted by political commercials, but then again it has been a month or two since I viewed anything, and things change rapidly in cyberspace.
--earlgo

[SteveHGraham]

Keith Rucker is not the greatest Youtube user known to man. I remember when he put a big red border at the bottom of all his videos. It looked just like the bar Youtube uses to indicate that a video has been watched, so it was very annoying to his fans. They complained like crazy, but he dug his heels in and held onto the red bar way too long. He finally gave in and replaced it with a blue bar.

When you do a series of videos on one subject, you should create a playlist, which is a list of videos that runs sequentially without additional clicking. One video runs into the next. Rucker has a few playlists, but generally, he doesn't use this feature.

You can pay Youtube a fee and get the ads removed. I don't know what it costs or whether it actually works. I tried "ad-free" Hulu and continued getting buried in ads.

I don't really mind Youtube ads. Most can be dismissed after 5 seconds, and sometimes they have ads that are actually worth watching.

RE privacy, it's all over. A thing of the past. The government knows where you go in your car. IP addresses are recorded when you browse the web, and then there are cookies. The cops use license plate scanners that automatically tell them if they should pull you over. It's illegal to shoot down a drone hovering over your yard. Face-recognition software is going to make it impossible to go to the grocery store without someone putting the information in a database. Car makers put data recorders in cars now, so God help you if you lie about how fast you were going before a crash. Your cellphone tells the government where you are all day long, and if you have Android and haven't turned off the location feature, there is a record of every movement you have made since you bought your first Android phone. You can access it online and see it.

No one talks about the horror of voice-transcription software. I can't understand that. Anyone who can access the sound of your voice can run it through a program and make a transcript, and that transcript can be searched for words Uncle Sam doesn't like. In the old days, J. Edgar Hoover had to pay grunt agents to sit and listen to calls. Now machines can do it, and I'm sure they are, because tech people invariably do every evil thing they are able to do.

I'm just glad they quit taking naked pictures of us at airports.

[mcostello]

If They would take a picture of Me in the airport through My skivvies I bet it would give the most hardened peeper heart burn and sore eyes.

[TomB]

Thanks for the inputs, I just wish it was a bit more positive. I am not concerned with some of the privacy loss things. I spent 50 years developing systems for NASA, US Air Force, US Navy… In those years I never meet an officer, enlisted, or civilian employee that was not strictly focused on getting the best deal for their agency. I believe we have a government because it can address things that are too big for an individual. Even though it sometimes seems like things are too big for the government, that tends to be a transient condition and eventually we get it right.
But that said, just to put me in middle, there are some things in this thread that really bother me. I feel that it is wrong that somebody other than me can use my stuff for free. If companies want to run malware on my PC then they should write a rental check to me and I should have the right to set the rental fee. If some company asks me to allow cookies and I say yes, that is not a permission for any other company to access those cookies. I should not have to go through rain dances to log into something because some industrial power house has decreed that they can read and exploit all the cookies that third parties installed and I don’t have the specialized knowledge to selectively erase. That a fundamental problem to US citizens and their government is monopoly rent and power. We have solid monopoly laws, I’ve lived under consent decrees, but we are not using those laws mostly because we have not let our definition of power/product grow with technology. We define Google’s product to be searches and Youtube’s product to be videos and say combining them does not grow monopoly power. But both Google and Youtube are really in the business of focused advertising. When G & Y plus Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter,… were all separate each may have owned 25% of the advertising access to me and because we are mostly the same that means each owned 25% of the advertising access to everybody. Combine G & Y and suddenly one company has 50% of the advertising access. That defines an industry merger that tends toward a monopolistic position yet it’s one we did not consider because we defined product wrong.
One of the agencies I designed for (one in the … list I did not name) use to dictate what was needed to protect US security. That included operating systems to run on PC’s. From that I was exposed to systems that use the HW facilities of our PC chips to define virtual machines (IBM’s big computer vernacular for convenience) that hosted every application. When applications were run in these VM boxes they did not have access to the general information associated with other applications. (There were lots of caveats related to planned sharing but that not relevant to this note.) For example, if I allow Malwarebytes to put cookies on my machine a Google search would not know they existed much less be able to read them. Or if I access Tulsi Gabbards webpages then Youtube could not determine that. It seems to me that by not taking strong anti-monopoly action against these behemoths we are letting our very world be destroyed.
I hope this response is not to political for Harold. If it is I apologize.

[jcfx]

But both Google and Youtube are really in the business of focused advertising.

I think the bottom line is that Google and Youtube aren't in the business of focused advertising,
they have bills to pay, G & Y were once ad free, I Google was, but they still needed to pay for their access to
the internet, servers to store the content and bandwidth to serve up content costs money,
especially as they got more popular. Ad revenue pays for that.

Best analogy I can think of is television advertisers pay TV networks for ad space on shows
which helps finance the shows you would watch. ( remember " This Show Was Brought To You By ... ?)
The TV ad analogy works the same way online ads do, if you watch cooking shows then the ads will be
predominantly about food, cleaning supplies, cooking utensils, Watch sports ? cars, tools, home improvement.

TV ads are truly anonymous targeting, based on what the supposed demographic audience will be for that particular show.
Internet ads are also anonymous, in that they don't know your personal info, but they do know your general location
your accessing from ( IP address ) , and where you've visited because of tracker cookies.
example ; you went shopping on Engulf and Devours' site for socks, then for tools at Tim's Toolshed, then looked at restaurants
cookies have your trail. You'll begin to see ads related to where you've been.
It's much more privacy intrusive.

I agree with you about companies using my information with out my consent, but the internet is still the wild west
where privacy is concerned, they do have a regulatory body, and I'm not sure how effective they are since the internet
changes so fast. Bottom line is you/we take control, use Firefox as a browser, nuke all the cookies after web surfing,
install ad/tracker blocker. Small inconveniences.

[tornitore45]

they have bills to pay,

Google made 9.4 Billions tax free profits last year. That is a little bit more than paying bills.

[TomB]

But both Google and Youtube are really in the business of focused advertising.

I think the bottom line is that Google and Youtube aren't in the business of focused advertising,
they have bills to pay,

A companies product is not the bills they pay, it is not stuff they give away. A companies product is what they sell.

G & Y sell advertising slots that are focused on providing the buyer with details about the user. That is only relevant to their position with respect to the countries anti-trust laws. Thinking that way makes a person aware of just how tech companies are flouting the law. That the advertising slots G & Y sell are more aggravating that those sold on TV is probably related to the fact that they are monopolies and don't give a dam about the user's attitude.

[Steggy]

From that I was exposed to systems that use the HW facilities of our PC chips to define virtual machines (IBM’s big computer vernacular for convenience) that hosted every application. When applications were run in these VM boxes they did not have access to the general information associated with other applications.

UNIX (and it's "offspring", e.g., Linux, the current versions of the Mac OS, etc.) has had that sort of "sandboxing" since the beginning—and UNIX as we know it has been around for 48 years. It took no special hardware, other than a "memory management unit"—MMU, a basic hardware building block of most multiuser, multitasking computers—to provide memory protection. Even without an MMU, protection was possible, although more difficult to provide. For example, the Commodore Amiga's operating system, which ran on a Motorola 68000 processor that lacked an MMU (Amiga 500 and Amiga 1000), could safely support multitasking and prevent task interference or deadlock situations. That would be the equivalent of what is today referred to as using virtual machines.

The rules governing access under UNIX-like operating systems are intrinsic to the operating system kernel, not any specific hardware device or secondary program. Under those rules, any given user-land process cannot access the environment of another process. Assuming suitable permissions have been set, any given regular user ("user" meaning person) cannot access the directories and files of another. Processes can agree to communicate and share data through semaphores, shared memory and/or shared messages (collectively called IPCS), or via pipes. However, access to a given IPCS or pipe arrangement is subject to the same security rules as access is to files and directories.

It was Microsoft who threw all that out the window and created the environment that could host viruses, worms, Trojans and other such intrusions. UNIX's security structure seems simple by comparison to any version of Windows. However, it was designed into the UNIX kernel from the beginning, not bolted on as an afterthought, as was the case with Windows. Exacerbating the situation in Windows is the use of a centralized registry—nothing more than a big, keyed-index file—that every Tom, Dick and Mary can access. Whomever thought that was a wise idea would probably be interested in purchasing my ocean-front cottage in Saskatchewan.