YouTube links and tracking

Post Reply New Topic

Yep - adding parameters to the end of a URL is a very basic starting point. Facebook is much more sophisticated and uses code on their website, scripts and cookies to track things.

But Facebook is notorious for the way it tracks people between sites and one of the many reasons why I block all Facebook URLs. I don't care what I might miss by doing so - the company is rapacious when it comes to hoovering up personal information.

I'm not sure if the video is being played by WP in an embedded window, or if it's being played in an embedded window by the member viewing it.
The former would hide the viewer but the latter would not.

So if we can find a location-restricted YouTube video and anyone can view it when embedded into a post, WP is doing the heavy lifting and the location of the viewer is masked.
But if the video can't be played by (say) someone in the UK, with it complaining that it's restricted for use in (say) the USA - then it's the viewer doing the heavy lifting so they would be exposed to YouTube.

I suspect the viewer would always be exposed to YouTube, on the basis that forums like WP tend to offload work onto the user's or other resources.
IOW, rather than having the WP server simultaneously play (x) copies of the same video, it connects (x) simultaneous YouTube streams to members' hardware. Ergo, YouTube streams directly to (x) users as usual.

That's an ingenious test. I wish I knew of such a region-restricted YT video. And curse my luck, I'm currently in the USA, so wouldn't be able to see the result myself, assuming WP is also in the USA. Still, as you say, it seems unlikely that WP goes to the trouble of masking users from YT. If only there wasn't that horrendous "auto-play bug" in Privacy Redirect, it wouldn't matter at all.

Facebook was once owned by the CIA and it is actually impossible to close ones facebook account as facebook will keep reopening closed accounts without permission.

^
I've always assumed that anything that goes onto Facebook may get into the wrong hands......in fact it's in the wrong hands already. Deleting anything could mean it's made invisible to the individual who "deletes" it, but getting them to remove it from their servers is another matter. Even if FB told me they'd done that, I wouldn't believe them. But I suppose the same could be said of anything that's put on the Web. Even if the website owner has the best will in the world, once something has been accessible to even a small sector of the public, somebody could screenshot it and do what they liked with it. Best policy is, if you want to keep it private, never upload it anywhere.

Both of those assertions seem unlikely. Can you link to evidence in support?