uMatrix, youtube, cookies

Networking
1

You don’t need cookies to browse Youtube, it works just fine without cookies except for one or two things. The comments are fetched by youtube.com script, as long as you have it enabled it works just fine.

Image

1
1.png1419×901 248 KB

If you were to turn off the 1st party cookies, the comments don’t load.

Image

2
2.png1417×890 194 KB

Same thing if you were disable cookies in firefox.

Image

3
3.png1417×913 232 KB

Conclusion, the comments you see on youtube are dependent on your cookie info, they are tailored to you…

Feeling left out? Get uMatrix on your firefox now, to have as much fun as I am having.

2 Likes
2

This explains a lot, because I see the same comments on every video. I don’t have a youtube account, cache/cookies are cleared every 30 mins, so I get the most bland, pg, chill, comments for every single video.

3

Is there any difference between noscript and umatrix?I heard they function similarly, but noscript blocks scripts completely while umatrix filters it out

4

uMatrix is much more comprehensive than noscript. But they both do more or less the same stuff. I use both, they don’t overwrite each other nor do they overwrite global firefox setiings. Its just that things that are not blocked by noscript can be blocked by uMatrix and vice-versa.

Noscript is good, and it maybe all that you need, same can be said for uMatrix… I guess its up to you.

By the way I have everything blocked by default, I unblock things one at a time in noscript and uMatrix until I am satisfied. So every single website that I visit is custom tailored.

My yt settings

Image

setting1
setting1.png1418×1051 344 KB

1 Like
5

Holy shit… omg… this is disturbing…

thanks tho

6

While you are at it, check out a members post:

The author is currently on the naughty step, but the post has some cracking ideas

1 Like
7

tenor
In addition to umatrix, add noscript, ublock origin (+ I am an advanced user), privacy badger, decentraleyes and FF in sandbox … maybe AdNauseam. Of course VPN or TOR.

Let Tin Foil Hat be with you. :wink:

1 Like
8

you’ve missed the point by miles, maybe you should stick the lounge

9

No.

10

Two cookies are associated with the comments
YSC
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE

Contain the content format generated different each time…
YSC:N8Eate1OPtM
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE:hBayEELvnoU

You can be tempted to block these specific cookies and not block the rest if someone has the need. Or play with the value …

    "name": "YSC",
    "value": "G44hudd3HP4",
    "domain": ".youtube.com",
    "hostOnly": false,
    "path": "/",
    "secure": false,
    "httpOnly": true,
    "sameSite": "no_restriction",
    "session": true,
    "firstPartyDomain": "",
    "storeId": "firefox-private"

    "name": "VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE",
    "value": "I4ED7Wtozzo",
    "domain": ".youtube.com",
    "hostOnly": false,
    "path": "/",
    "secure": true,
    "httpOnly": true,
    "sameSite": "no_restriction",
    "session": true,
    "firstPartyDomain": "",
    "storeId": "firefox-private"
11

What? Not sure what you mean but the cookie value is the same across a session.

Also, I missed the part were you explain, why a unique cookie (used in cunjunction with a fetch script) is necessary to deliver comments on a youtube video.

Edit: I don’t mean to offend you, but if you do know why this is, and explain it, I would very much appreciate that.

12

I have the impression that from the very beginning you did not understand sarcasm at all and you take everything seriously … :wink:

Do they use these specific cookies to make an individual fingerprint, probably. Whether they use them to provide an individual set of comments, it is possible though I have not observed it. No matter how randomly the user is, the set of displayed comments is rather the same.
Why they do it and in this way it is rather obvious. Nobody is arguing with you about this situation.

The heart of the discussion is the same from the beginning, how much you want to separate yourself, the common “Tin Foil Hat”.

I do not argue with you about whether it actually takes place because it has. I just noticed that in addition to blocking all cookies for the domain, you can get a look at these two specific ones in order to perhaps achieve a similar result as blocking everything. You can also use some frontend that will do the same and cut the cookies. We live in a time where cookies and javascript try to spy on you on many websites, there is no shock that Google does it too.
If you are not interested in comments on yt, blocking cookies is ok as long as it does not affect the other functions that you would like to use.

The question is what is your final goal in blocking cookies … Spying or alleged individual comments? The very fact that you are on YT means that you are under a microscope. Take a look at how many different websites a user is tracked by nested scripts from google or facebook. This is a cesspool river …

Officially “YSC” cookie is set by the YouTube video service on pages with embedded YouTube video. “VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE” A cookie that YouTube sets that measures your bandwidth to determine whether you get the new player interface or the old. “PREF” cookie stores your preferences and other information, in particular preferred language, how many search results you wish to be shown on your page, and whether or not you wish to have Google’s SafeSearch filter turned on.
A fetch is JS, but what it is for, and how it works, you probably know so.

And if you still want to block cookies or fetch and you care about reading comments, maybe … https://github.com/philbot9/youtube-comment-scraper-cli

13

Requiring a cookie for comments: Probably for shadow bans, you want to make it more difficult for the trolls to realize they’ve been silenced.