Since every other discussion seems to be getting derailed with Hooktube/Anti-hooktube flaming. So type away! I'll start:
Anti-hooktubers, why don't you like Hooktube? Are you incredulous to the legitimacy of such a project? Or do you think it's unethical? Or are you frustrated that there are people using Hooktube and not looking for a true, viable alternative to YouTube?
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 5:20
Because its 1.Not an alternative. Its just embed youtube. 2.Its doesn't stop youtube from knowing that you watch it. 3.Its not a proxy and gives you a false sense of security. 4.Most expirienced users already adblock all of youtube.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 5:35
Surprisingly good answer. I was expecting something more contrarian, but you're totally right. I mostly use Hooktube because I can't view comments on vanilla YouTube and still block the things I want on uMatrix. I also find that Hooktube is easier to navigate.
The burden of proof is on the hooktube lodge, not us. Youtube is perfectly fine, we all use adblock and noscript anyway and I don't give a shit about stroking some content creator's ego by ++ his view counter.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 10:29
It's really quite an innocuous thing to get worked up over.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 13:21
I was wondering when this thread was going to be made. :) Coming from the pro-HookTube camp, I use it for multiple reasons, one because YouTube since their last major redesign has become unnecessarily bloated. Two, because YouTube has initiated sneaky censorship tactics like placing videos in a "limited state" and I can use HookTube to get information and data from a video that's been placed in a limited state. For example, this video by Black Pigeon Speakshttps://youtu.be/NanumqpBDtA was placed in a limited state recently and as is, I cannot see how many views it has, how many thumbs up or down, nor any comments or recommended videos that you often see to the right.
With the same video using HookTube https://hooktube.com/watch?v=NanumqpBDtA I can see that (as of this post) the video has 159,262 views, 12,302 thumbs up, 436 thumbs down, the list of suggested videos to the right and it can fetch at least some of the top comments that were left on the video. I can also download the video in mp4 format without having to fickle around in a command line with
That's actually not entirely true. It fetches the video from YouTube and it plays in your browser's native HTML5 video player instead of YouTube's normal player. It only switches to regular YouTube embed when YouTube will not allow it to fetch and download the video. NSFWYouTube (http://nsfwyoutube.com/ ), that I used to use a lot more often before I found HookTube, uses just plain YouTube embed to bypass having to login as a user for certain videos.
2.Its doesn't stop youtube from knowing that you watch it.
How would it know, if you are not directly connecting to YouTube? HookTube is a middle site that downloads the video and then it serves it to your browser, YouTube thinks that HookTube is just another user downloading the video using
youtube-dl
or
wget
and the big difference is it would see HookTube's IP and not yours in doing so.
3.Its not a proxy and gives you a false sense of security.
See above.
4.Most expirienced users already adblock all of youtube.
HookTube isn't just to get away from video ads as I demonstrate in >>7
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 14:10
>HookTube is a middle site that downloads the video and then it serves it to your browser This is retarded. YOU BROWSER USES JAVASCRIPT FROM HOOKTUBE TO LOAD A VIDEO...FROM YOUTUBE. There is no "middle site" its interface to youtube. Its basically a glorified userscript. User Request Policy and it will show the site connecting to googlevideo.com
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-11 16:47
>>9 You get a clean interface with the video, and the video itself doesn't have your view counted.
It is true that youtube-dl/mpv makes a lot of the practical advantages of Hooktube/nsfwyoutube redundant; however, there's something to be said about the Hooktube in the context of content blockers--so called "adblockers" like uMatrix--because there is a distinction, in that Hooktube is a centralized, universal solution to the same problem that content blockers address, and that is significant. Why? Because not all web browsers have content blockers, nor do all laypeople use (whether that's because they don't care or don't have the know-how is insignificant) content blockers. The latter is really important, because it reveals how elitist the adblock argument really is since adblock users are at the end of the bell curve--content blockers are not the precedent. And while there will always be a persistent niche that uses content blockers, there will be people that simply have to accommodate advertisements, phishing attacks, & c. due to sheer ignorance. Hooktube subverts all that.
It's true that Hooktube isn't a real solution to the YouTube problem, but I don't think that argument in itself is enough to dismiss Hooktube, because Hooktube can still do something really valuable: it can change the precedent. Hooktube can change the expectations that laypeople have when they think of a site like YouTube by universally change the quality of how those videos are served by means of a cleaner UI, no adverts, no tracking, & c..., which can catalyze the demand (and support thereby) of a real YouTube solution.
There are retards on /g/ who literally don't even realize that Hooktube is just a glorified YouTube overlay.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-12 8:44
>>12 I've said in another thread regarding HookTube that it's largely an intermediary between the current awfulness of YouTube and a site that's finally a complete break. There are already alternatives like pew.tube, d.tube and BitChute and they seem to be developing at their own pace. The people I personally follow all have backup channels on BitChute. However, they're still quite small sites and YouTube is still so large that they can afford to continue to shoot themselves in the foot for the foreseeable future. I doubt that they will stop at bullshit like placing videos in a limited state and HookTube has been a gift in bypassing that as I mentioned before in >>7.
>>13 /g/ is using HookTube? I haven't said anything positive about /g/ in years, but that's a good thing. And so what if it's just some "glorified YouTube overlay"? It's something that is needed for some people at this point in time.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-12 8:47
using hooktube is like putting a condom onver a hammer when driving nails into the wall
>>14 No, /g/ hates Hooktube, despite the fact that they barely grasp what Hooktube is. Actually, wasn't it a /g/ user who made Hooktube in the first place? There's a Hooktube thread right now, and half of them are still convinced you're supposed to upload videos to Hooktube.
Actually, wasn't it a /g/ user who made Hooktube in the first place?
I don't know if Swack is a /g/ user, but he is on Voat and that's where I found it.
There's a Hooktube thread right now, and half of them are still convinced you're supposed to upload videos to Hooktube.
Lmao. Never change, /g/.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-12 22:57
I used not to like it because it did not work with youtube-dl. Now I do not really care bout I am slightly annoyed that they demand to have JS active in order to watch a video.
>>32 All things considered, YouTube is actually pretty restrained. It's more of a fundamental issue of maintaining one of the biggest video repositories in the World. In fact, censorship is kind of hyperbolic (although totally valid in sentiment) since YouTube doesn't really take the videos, so much as just restrict discussion. Hooktube is, in fact, kind of proof that YouTube doesn't censor. The obvious flaw in my logic here is that content creators can't survive on videos that can't be monetized/redistributed and thus are herded to making less inflammatory, "problematic", content.
Ah, but that's not the only way you can make money on YouTube. I think the real issue here is copyright. Look at MDE, not a single monetized video. In fact, all of the MDE videos are realized under the free, creative commons (I think it was nc but I don't remember) license, and they're still here. Why? Because fans can redistribute their works. And the fact that their videos aren't monetizeable is, in a way, advantageous, because their friends know enough to know that it's on them to donate if they want to see more MDE. The PBS model, for God's sake! Think outside of the box! Adverts? Sponsorships. Dontations. There's more than one means of revenue. Which is why I don't think complaints about YouTube's post-"adpocalypse" censorship is valid. It's just a new paradigm.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-14 13:35
>>32 You dumb nigger YouTube is a private business and they can do whatever they want with your shitty opinions
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-14 14:46
>>35 I feel like Patreon supports both. A more apt name would be the Kickstarter model, since they're exclusively that. Either way, it clearly gets the job done.
YouTube is a private business and they can do whatever they want with your shitty opinions
And I can use a service that utilizes their open API. And fuck the argument that because it's a private business they can do whatever. They're a monopoly and they need to be dealt with.
>>42 He's making the distinction because >>23 literally misinterpreted the meaning of his post because he couldn't distinguish past and present tense. Jesus Christ, for someone who's posting on a textboard, you seriously lack reading comprehension.
To put it in the frankest of terms, my dear OP, you are not applying any brains. Words, in English pray believe, have more meaning than simply that which is there in a Dictionary. Context matters, context implies. From context you must infer, through the application of brains. I'm going to sage, but please consider this post a gift of education.
>>52 I'm really starting to wonder if you grasp the way /lounge/ works. You'd think with unlimited Internet access you would be able to lurk long enough to know you'd only embarrass yourself posting leftist psychobabble.
>>60 Oh, weird. For a second I thought that I had made that post. The word "psychobabble"'s been getting thrown around so much on here I didn't realize that >>53 was using the word unironically, although I haven't ruled out trolling. I literally mistook it for my own post, because they all look the same.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-23 23:24
Progrider, circa 2016: "Fuck off with linking to YouTube." dis.tinychan.org, circa 2017: "Directly link to YouTube, asshole." I can't win with you contrarians.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-23 23:42
>>61 I made that post but was in a hurry so I just copy pasted the beginning of some other post and end of another post and added some stuff about leftists in the middle. That's probably why you got confused -- one or both of the posts I copied from was made by you originally.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-23 23:48
>>19 Why would you come to a Textboard and watch videos in the first place? Try r/video.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-25 21:41
The admin of this site is really apathetic. Why doesn't s/he stop the two guys who keep spamming hooktube and youtube links??
I only post the HookTube link once for those who don't want to click on a direct YouTube link, if the guy posts a link to YouTube again in some retarded attempt to start a flame war over it, I don't oblige.
>>66 There is literally no fucking reason why you should spam the Hooktube link if there's already a YouTube link. All you have to do is change "YouTube" to "Hooktube" in the URL, you fucking moron. You're not doing anyone a service, you're just annoying everyone. Same with the YouTube spammer. Fuck both of you. At best, you're fighting over this petty thing under the facade of "helping" people in order to fill the void in your depraved ego, and the irony of it all is it just makes everyone hate you and HookTube and YouTube even more than we already did.
>>70 I actually find it convenient when the hooktube alt link is posted in tandem with youtube links. I always click the hooktube one if it's there but otherwise would never click the youtube link then change youtube to hooktube in the url as the page loads. So it does its job and makes everybody happy. you on the other hand are butthurt.
>>71 What you're saying is that you would rather be spoonfed at the expense of others than do the minimum amount of effort necessary to simply help yourself, even when there are several userscripts officially endorsed by HookTube that would do all the work on your behalf.
>>70 Posting a link once is not spam. If you don't want to use HookTube, just ignore the link and use the original YouTube link instead. Don't get mad about it and link to YouTube directly again out of spite. It's quite a useful thing and people like >>7,12 have benefited from its use. Seriously, calm your tits.
>>73 There's also the thing that if it were never linked here, people wouldn't know about it and wouldn't even be aware of the userscripts to begin with. That's also why I link to HookTube so people can discover it. You're the only one here right now who is upset about it.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-26 10:57
>>74,75 Just because you refuse to acknowledge spam as spam doesn't make it anything other than spam. You're implying that the only way to spread awareness about HookTube is to actively derail threads knowing fully well you're going to instigate a flame war. You can claim otherwise, but there's physical, consistent proof that what you're doing has repercussions beyond what you claim, and if you aren't aware of that, you're either very, very stupid or lying to remove all responsibility from yourself, which is selfish and stupid and--most especially--not beneficial to HookTube's image. And you're also implying that I'm the one posting the reactionary YouTube links, which is absolutely untrue. There are more than two people facilitating this stupid conflict, and that includes yourself. You. You're just as responsible.
In reality, you can promote Hooktube more effectively and passively by simply using a Hooktube link when you have something to share. By actively accosting people, you're inflating your ego while simultaneously doing more harm than good by making HookTube look like the kind of site shallow contrarians share just to annoy people--because that's exactly what you are, an annoying contrarian. And you can't pretend like you're doing any good for HookTube, because you're not. You should know that, but you pretend not to, out of sheer ignorance or blatant vanity. You're a hypocrite. If you care about HookTube's popularity--stupid thing to be invested in, by the way, if you haven't already read the thread (which you probably haven't)--you won't respond to this post. You won't try to rationalize your hypocrisy. Learn that sometimes, to do more good, you need to step down from the fucking pedestal. I'm only criticizing you because I myself use HookTube, so don't pretend like I'm some kind of troll, either.
Name:
Anonymous2017-11-26 11:03
Before you started correcting other people's YouTube links to HookTube links, /lounge/ was for a brief time 90% HookTube, because people learned by imitation. By turning HookTube, a simple utility that did so little it was hardly worth even acknowledging, into the object of debate, you effectively ruined any chance of HookTube gaining dominance over /lounge/. You. You did this. The YouTube spammer was simply the logical conclusion of your actions--inevitable contrarianism and skepticism towards unwarranted harassment.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge spam as spam doesn't make it anything other than spam.
You can declare the sky is green, doesn't make it so.
You're implying that the only way to spread awareness about HookTube is to actively derail threads knowing fully well you're going to instigate a flame war.
As I said before in >>66 I only post the link to HookTube once, if some asshat gets mad and posts the direct link to YouTube AGAIN out of spite, that's his problem. I don't continue to do so because that's just going to escalate into a pointless flame war.
And you're also implying that I'm the one posting the reactionary YouTube links, which is absolutely untrue.
The fact that you're going out of your way to "scold" people for posting an alternative link to YouTube leads me to suspect it so (keyword: suspect. I, of course, don't know for certain). It's not that far of a stretch.
I'm only criticizing you because I myself use HookTube, so don't pretend like I'm some kind of troll, either.
Okay, but I've also had people directly link to YouTube when I posted a HookTube link. I don't get mad and bent out of shape about it.
you effectively ruined any chance of HookTube gaining dominance over /lounge/. You. You did this. The YouTube spammer was simply the logical conclusion of your actions
Wrong. HookTube was hated from day one by some people. First, the claim was "HookTube is stealing!" then that didn't work. Next was "HookTube uses JavaScript!" That also didn't work. Now HookTube haters just link directly back to YouTube. That's fine. Nobody forces you to use it, but no need to post the direct YouTube link for a second time when the original link is already posted.
https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube Here's another p2p solution that interface with via your browser. I'm not sure what the difference is between this and BitChute, but I know that this one takes advantage of the BitTorrent protocol.
>>96 A scornful word is harsh and wild; ensconced in the verbal conflagration is a newborn child. The infant child can't seam to bear that it's been snuffed unaware.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-23 8:46
The year dies in the dawn of Winter And the tide's rise is in the morn'. Disciples of Hooktube come hither, But don't BitChute brethren forlorn. HookTube's not for adverts t' dither, And YouTube 's not made for Elsa porn.
Neither services provide a solution For decentralized video distribution.
There isn't much of a choice. Until YouTube changes policy or dies, alternatives aren't going to gain the momentum they need.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-23 18:49
Not to ring the net neutrality bell after all the shit those norms kicked up, but I do wonder about the viability of alternative platforms in the wake of its repeal. It's just baffling how the same short-sighted, mindless consumers who effectively caused this to happen and whose money lines the pockets of the legislature-makers and lobbyists who caused this are also the ones that delusionally believe they're the most entitled to whine. In all seriousness, no startup could ever possibly pay the same tariff that Netflix or YouTube pays to have their platforms not be prioritized, even decentralized platforms. I guess the minority of us that browse sites like this and are actually affected are going to suffer the most, while the people who caused all this are drowning our voices by whining on our behalf.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-24 0:32
>>100 Net neutrality doesn't really have much to do with this. All that was done was it reverted things back to pre-2015 regulations, and (almost) the exact same problems with YouTube discussed here were around back then.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-24 8:39
>>101 I never said that anything did change. As it happens, things are just as bad as they were under Obama, and that's the issue: small, budding platforms simply don't have the revenue to pay the ISP tariff the way the Netflix historically did, and while that isolated incident was briefly bad for Netflix, there's equal chance that similar negotiations could unfairly benefit big platforms on wired the way that wireless service plans often favor big media platforms (free streaming for certain platforms). While there's no evidence to suggest that smaller platforms have ever been treated unfairly, there's plenty of instances where things like BitTorrent have been throttled and worse. It's clear that there's never going to be a centralized platform equal to YouTube or even the smaller, more niche Vimeo, so the obvious logical continuation is that the most viable YouTube competitor of the future would be decentralized, possibly relying on a protocol like BitTorrent as with ipfs and PeerTube.
>>102 There are sites like PewTube, BitChute, and d.tube, but they're mostly used to get away from YouTube's draconian "hate speech" rules, and only a very small portion of people will completely migrate away from YouTube, most are just using them as a backup in case YouTube goes on a sudden massive purge.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-24 18:24
>>105 I've tried to use LiveLeak, but they are part of RussiaToday and remove any anti-Russian content. For example, LiveLeak removed my Rusich beheading video and banned me for it (there were no strikes, just instant ban).
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-24 18:30
>>106 Because you're Nikita, and nobody likes you. If I want to subject myself to anti-Russian propaganda, I can just sit and watch CNN all day. It's boring, and Hillary and her fans need to get over the fact that they lost.
No, relative to sites like PewTube, d.tube and BitChute. And I guess to a small extent, Vimeo. YouTube used to completely delete Holocaust revisionst videos, but now they just place them into a "limited state" (see >>7), still quite censoring, though.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-25 19:00
>>118 Ugh, I got autobanned again. I've been a naughty boy. Anyway, that's what I figured. If I might ask, aren't the sites that you mentioned pretty left-leaning? If not in reality, at least in principle they have to be in order to be marketable, and they're not overtly trying to be a holocaust denier haven. Certainly, it's not on their roadmap. Even BitChute.
If I might ask, aren't the sites that you mentioned pretty left-leaning?
If they are, they're of an earlier incarnation of the left that wouldn't be for overt political correctness, and blatant censoring of expression. I know BitChute is associated with James Corbett, and I consider him to be something of an apolitical, non-system liberal (if that makes any sense).
If not in reality, at least in principle they have to be in order to be marketable, and they're not overtly trying to be a holocaust denier haven.
Not explicitly, no. They're for (near) total freedom of expression. PewTube doesn't have a "hate speech" clause in their terms of service, for example, I'm not sure about the other two, but I would say they're probably similar. That's pretty much what makes them marketable; they don't outright say that they're going to be a haven for people who question aspects of the Holocaust, but they're not going to take down their videos or censor them, either. The common YouTube watcher looking at Vevo branded music videos are probably never going to move to any of these sites, but activists (of all persuasions) will.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-25 19:54
>>120 But it makes me wonder about the radical, hyperbolic leftists (and right wingers) who are loose with facts that are willing to bully even people with partisan leanings similar to their own if they're too moderate. I know saying this may sound weird, but don't you think that they of all people would be equipped to see past that facade? Or do you think the no-virtue-signalling, a-partisan policy is enough to protect from that kind of backlash? Keep in mind that said backlash doesn't have to affect the site directly, just its prospective userbase.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-25 20:34
>>121 It's fine as long as the sites make sure to keep entryist infiltrators away from them on an institutional level. Failing that, if worse comes to worst, fork the site.
>>128 That's because I activated it, as per >>126's request.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 3:51
I've personally been very passive about my Hooktube spamming, only doing so when I share a video link, which was in turn very seldomly. Of course, in light of recent developments, although it's really fucking stupid since the url's are basically identical, I'll just share both links to satisfy every asshole, all of whom I hate for ruining one of the few things in this material world I liked. I literally predicted how the flagrant Hooktube spamming would eventually elicit the negative interpretation of someone under the pretense of spam or some other malicious motive, which in turn led to negative reaction. But nobody listened to me.
>>132,133 To be fair, I was kind of butthurt. I did try to argue with you more than once, before I realized it couldn't be helped. Let's just hope this is a lesson learned for when something more significant than Hooktube crops up, although somehow I doubt it.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 5:57
there will never be a viable alternative to YouTube that's not also run by some giant advertising company. serving videos is outrageously expensive. the only way to even hope to break even is to deliver ads in-house and also use pre-existing infrastructure of server farms around the world.
IPFS or otherwise P2P methods would not work either. it would take hours to years to load a shitty 30 second video, and at that point why not forget the whole interface and just share bittorrent files.
there would have to be some serious advances in infrastructure at the hardware level. if a 1TB/s up/down connection would cost $50/month, then videos, in addition to everything else, could be fully distributed. that doesn't seem likely to happen soon though.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 6:04
>>135 Maybe Advanced Compression Algorithms would work? Like on Silicon Valley except an actual thing.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 7:10
>>135 Didn't you already say that? In this thread, even. Why are you repeating yourself? Wasn't it already established that there would never be a competing YouTube alternative if it were to follow similar means?
Also, not to sound condescending, but you don't understand how p2p works, clearly. It's just another protocol alongside http. Among instances where a bittorrent file has the same infrastructure and resources as a popular www site (such as Slackware's torrents of their installation mediums), speeds are not only equivocal to that of a http download, but faster and more efficient in low-bandwidth scenarios. Why? Because that's the whole reason why bittorrent was fucking made. With the advent of The Pirate Bay, there are bittorrent clients that will literally stream while the video is downloading, because there are so many peers, who seed at a capacity even larger than by conventional means. This stereotype that bittorrent is slow only exists because of ghetto torrents on public trackers with two or three shitty seeders. Among torrents that actually use bittorrent for what it's meant to be used for, large binary files, and who actually distribute legitimate non-copyrighted files that large numbers of people actually care about, like Canonical's Ubuntu, bittorrent is blatantly superior. And guess what p2p network is built on bittorrent? That's right: ipfs. The only thing hindering ipfs and many of these distributed (note, I didn't say decentralized, like with Tor) networks is popularity. My point isn't that all the links on ipfs, even in an ideal world, would be perfectly seeded; my point is that bittorrent and ipfs thereby have the theoretical capacity not only to be a viable alternative to our modern internet but vastly better.
And shame on you for generalizing p2p the way you are. Protocols like i2p are vastly different, than, say freenet. Not only in the sense that they provide different means by different implementations, but they have different directions and are solutions for oftentimes completely different ends.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 7:15
>>135 I should probably follow that up. The whole point of p2p is that you don't need to rely on one rich, heavy-infrastructure entity like Alphabet in order to supply a means of distributing data. Nor is p2p made up of exclusively private citizens with tiny computers and American-tier bandwidth. There are plenty of corporate entities that use p2p, and all you would really need, theoretically, in order to serve videos to all the same people that YouTube does would be a few semi-relevant businesses to pool in a fraction of their resources.
speeds are not only equivocal to that of a http download, but faster and more efficient in low-bandwidth scenarios
the enthusiasm people have for seeding important files wouldn't translate to YouTube type videos. lots of people are interested in Slackware ISOs. not so many people might be interested in Nikita's vlog spoken in Ukranian.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 9:03
>>140 But Nikita himself could seed the video. Beyond that, services, nonprofit or paid, could seed on his behalf.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-31 12:20
>>141 Seeding is for schmucks, especially in torrenting My ratio is always 0.01 Edited on 31/12/2017 12:31.
>>141
Seeding is for schmucks, especially in torrenting
My ration is always 0.01
My ratio is always 0.01
>>142 Unless you're using i2p, in which seeding helps obfuscate your identity.
Name:
Anonymous2018-01-01 5:25
>>140 You don't need enterprise-tier support to seed the 2.5 people who'll Nikita's retarded blog in the entirety of its existence seamlessly. Nikita himself seeding the video notwithstanding, a project as small as Vid.me could carry more than enough of the slack.
Welp, the kikes at YouTube finally killed it. This is hot right off of from HookTube's changelog:
• rest in pieces • It was a good run, 1.5 years. Started as a quickly made addition to the norbot project, and within long the server had to be upgraded several times. Of course YouTube Legal was an inevitability at that point. • Special thanks to the many people who created plugins and extensions for hooktube, /g/, the five people who donated anonymously, and BitChute for working hard on a real YouTube alternative. HookTube will remain operational in the present state for those who only needed it for performance reasons. See you in the next project.
This is why Nasim Aghdam did absolutely nothing wrong. YouTube's headquarters needs to be shot up again, and this time make sure to take out the kikess (((Susan Wojcicki))) this time. Looks like it's back to using the original
youtube-dl
for me.
Name:
Anonymous2018-07-16 11:26
Is this the end of hooktube?
Name:
Anonymous2018-07-16 11:28
>>150 Why didn't you just always use youtube-dl? Players like mpv can stream with it so there is almost no reason to use a website for it. Last I checked mpv struggled with livestreams a bit, but that was it. I'll be honest, I never got the point of Hooktube.