5 ms·
They can obviously generate indistinguishably unique urls for video sharing links if they wanted, this is just easier to implement (though not by much). Also t
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
They can obviously generate indistinguishably unique urls for video sharing links if they wanted, this is just easier to implement (though not by much).
Also there’s no treachery afoot here… go ahead and remove it, the stakes here are very low.
- pdimitar 3y agoWell exactly, they are outright adding an URL parameter and of course I'll remove it. Doesn't mean that they don't rely on less tech-inclined people to never even notice, and I am sure that's a core part of their strategy anyway. As for the indistinguishable URLs, you have a solid point there but I'd think there would be a lot of outrage because people want those URLs to generate previews when pasted in pages, social media comments etc. Not to mention all the false positives generated by people embedding such URLs. So I think for now we're safe on that front, they would poison their own well if they went ahead with encoded URL identifiers, happily. But again, I am very amused that they just outright added "?si=..." -- to me that reeks of desperation and I have to admit that I enjoy it when Google is struggling.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoIf this "reeks to you of desperation", then you're putting a lot more emotional energy into the situation than is necessary. There is no world in which this is desperation on the part of YouTube, that's not a reasonable view.