[1] https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-delists-youtube-rippers-from-g...

[2] https://torrentfreak.com/music-company-asks-google-to-delist...

I think Piracy is actually much closer to dying than people think. Not just with RarBG going down today and 1337x being the last major player standing; but also Denuvo now being so complicated there is only one person known to be able to crack it who is also schizophrenic (literally); the Xbox One having never been cracked and the PS5 currently uncracked, and the Nintendo Switch having software that has been described as being basically perfectly secure and unlikely to ever have a kernel exploit ever again (if only NVIDIA's code and chip was as well designed), laying the groundwork for a potentially-uncrackable Switch 2 once NVIDIA adds glitching protection and all Switch 2s have the recovery mode patch...

I too thought that piracy might be on its way out, but I think it will see a second life.

More often than previous years have I been resorting to piracy. Why? Well, streaming catalogues have been trimming things because either their rights to an IP expired or for reasons unknown. Regardless, I had to pirate a film the other day because it disappeared from every streaming platform, and I know for a fact that I originally watched it on Netflix. In other cases, I pirate because the "HD" and even "4K" quality toted by these streaming services rarely lives up to its promise. Somehow videos served by a bunch of individuals far exceed the quality of videos I pay for almost every time. Bandwidth on my end has nothing to do with it. Sometimes I just don't want to watch something filmed in 2023 that looks like it was filmed on a potato in 2006, but films and shows can often look like that when streamed in my experience. Sometimes I get lucky, but it's annoying when the streaming quality hits a wall and doesn't improve. And I don't get my money back if the video never looks like HD even if I paid for the HD version.

The more these companies crack down, the closer we are to the threshold where piracy seems fun and cool again.

Also, pirates will always find a way. Something I watched recently that was pirated was actually a screen recording, and it looked pretty good. If DRM thwards screen recording, then pirates will hack together dummy monitors that encode the input to mkv. And if that doesn't work, there's still the analog hole.

There's just a lack of interest, the Switch has been broken wide open because there's tons of exclusives on it. I don't see any point doing the same on a PS5.

And even for the switch, why bother if your goal is piracy? You can just emulate it better than the real hardware itself...

For a hypothetical Switch 2, you can't emulate if you can't decrypt the games. You also can't build an emulator if you can't run homebrew to figure out the hardware.

From the hardware side, tools get cheaper and cheaper every year. Even today it's a lot more feasible for a motivated group to do things like decapping chips and scanning them to extract keys. This sort of thing will only get cheaper and more accessible over time. Maybe manufacturers will have to start putting HSMs into their products that self-destruct when they detect tampering to try to combat this?

But it is a federal felony to employ those ways to extract it without the DRM gunk. That's the point of the DMCA: where DRM mechanisms fail, the law kicks in.

It's kinda like gun control. Gun control is a good idea not because it prevents a sufficiently motivated person from obtaining or making a gun, but because it vastly reduces the market for gun buyers and helps solve the "gun availability problem": mass shootings happen because there are so many guns around it isn't hard for a crazy person to get their hands on one. The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's legally purchased rifle.

If piracy tools are extra super illegal, and people start visibly going to jail for making, using, or distributing them, then that adds friction to the act of piracy that will make simply paying for the product the easier option. That's why anticircumvention laws exist.

The high profile jail / make an example route was taken in the 80s, 90s and early 2000. That made anyone technical see the absurdities of the policy and created sympathy that allowed piracy to grow.

If you hold a gun as a protection against your gonverment, something is seriously wrong.

Not at all, this is just the way things are, and if you studied history correctly you'd realize this and be educated enough to rationally think about these things instead of repeating a common indoctrinated response. Unfortunately most people who have attended compulsory k-12 education are fighting against some level of indoctrination whether they know it or not. There are numerous factors designed to rob people of their reason and its a rare individual who overcomes this.

Systems work either because of the distribution of labor, or corruption, that enables them to overcome friction and enact change in a productive direction.

In centralized systems, the distribution of labor is not effective because you are not free to build those systems from the ground up (decentralized). Its top-down and concentrated. The people in these systems do not do this for free, they seek benefits as does anyone in a distribution of labor, and this is oft referred to as corruption since it is working outside the defined top-down system's provided benefits.

People over time are almost always incapable of limiting themselves when they are raised above others, there's a biological component which affects dopamine related to heirarchy. Its the same in lobsters, which is why some anti-depressants actually work on lobsters.

Power increases heirarchy, affecting dopamine levels, you run into the same issues of those at the top always striving for more; and it never being enough. In this particular context seeking more power than has been granted is a problem.

Over sufficient lengths of time, governments become corrupt. They start passing laws with no legal basis, and use their power to compulse, coerce, and increase their power and control through enforcing these laws which they had no authority to pass in the first place.

There are many written accounts of this, some of the most famous being Thomas Paine who described the destruction of the Bastille and the French Revolution.

This is the natural lifecycle of government. When governments are unable to correct issues internally, they devolve into fascism. When facing fascists, they will take whatever they can; as determined by the people with pull until people stop them; the cycle starts over, generations forget, hubris sets in; and it repeats.

The only thing stopping them is your ability to defend yourself and your property making the cost more than the benefit. Its why this was written into the constitution. Its happened many times in recorded history.

It almost always starts with corruption by dependency. Making the majority of people or a population completely dependent upon the system for survival. It often creates a problem and then utilizes tactics that the only reason something couldn't be fixed is because their power isn't enough which is plausible; but its never enough and neglects the origin of the problem. History is full of examples where people have lied to gain more power.

Slow small corruptions over time that build into larger and larger corruptions, finally to laws without a legal basis of authority that can be applied arbitrarily to anyone the leaders or their delegates choose.

People living through these times normalize this behavior because they have no choice. Its a psychological coping mechanism. Eventually a destabilization event occurs breaking any dependencies for authority and you have fascism/authoritarianism, such as what happened in Germany starting with the Reichstag Fire (1933) that ultimately paved the way for WW2.

Timothy Snyder did a series of videos on Tyranny. You may find these interesting as a starting point for further self-directed education as he is a credible source, being a Yale Historian with background in the Holocaust and more recent history.

Most of what we are taught in school is incomplete in an intentional way, and misleads towards wrong viewpoints because we weren't provided all the appropriate information, nor were we biologically developed enough or trained to think critically and rationally.

Much is taught by rote prior to the age of reason and students conditioned for boredom as was done in the original compulsory education our education system was based off which originally came from Prussia to train obedient patriotic unthinking soldiers.

Our system is designed to train obedient workers. Critical thought is not what its designed to teach, they only teach what promotes an obedient worker which is why they don't teach you about money or other things that would help you be successful, success outcomes are only a secondary objective and that is a structured design.

I believe the true revolution is forgiveness - no matter how idealistic it sounds. It's far above any system or regime. You have always a choice.

If you have detente or parity (i.e. both sides can defend themselves), the choice you often have in those cases is, will you, your spouse, and your children choose to become slaves for all time. All it takes is obedient consent, will you fight for your family or choose to die instead. The societal mechanics involved don't allow a third option. Slave or Fight/Die, that is the choice.

Basically, first they come for <someone who they say has done horrible things>... then they come for <your neighbors> ... and finally they came for you and there was no one to speak against them on your behalf.

You clearly have never heard of Sophie's choice, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did.

Its a common setup with coercion, and used by corrupt entities to coerce behavior that ultimately causes suffering. People that suffer or who are put into an unstable psychogical state are more malleable and vulnerable to certain psychological attacks and tactics designed to indoctrinate. Look up the term struggle session, and what that entails.

Saying you have a choice is extremely naively and misguided. It lacks a true understanding of how the world actually works with regards to coercion.

Here's a form of Sophie's choice. An evil person/group has captured you and is holding you and your three siblings (brother and two sisters) captive. He gives you the choice of choosing one of your siblings who will not be killed, and he will kill the rest. They are present when he says this, and he emphasizes that failure to make a choice by the time specified means he kills them all. What is your choice, you always have a choice.

Regardless of what you choose, any survivors will hate you until their dying day because you killed the others, by choice. Failing to choose one, means you chose to have all of them die, and they realize you didn't love them enough to choose; in their final moments.

Do you really always have a choice? Is a coerced choice a choice?

These are important questions which you seem to not have thought through at all. They are normally covered in an intro to philosophy course, though coercion is not touched on normally until later coursework.

Some entities are perfectly fine with killing you, chopping you up and selling your organs, or using you as slave labor, or re-educating your ideology.

Choice is an illusion, in many cases, anyone saying otherwise as a generalization is naive; misguided, and uneducated, and a danger to anyone that would potentially believe it because they are inspiring a false/limiting belief in those people that would/could persist over their lifetime or beyond (a greater evil). It negatively impacts the fitness of all future descendants as an ideological contagion, until the resulting forces of natural selection and lack of adaptability ends their line (extinction).

If you inspire a false belief, you are responsible for all the suffering and negative outcomes that arise as a result of teaching that belief to others, both directly and indirectly. This is true even if you have no intent, or knowledge of what you do; because you should have known and done research, especially after someone brought it to your attention.

For there to be a choice, the person must accept and make a decision of their own free will with sufficient knowledge and without constraint such as coercive or malign influence.

Very few real choices actually exist these days since corruption by dependency and outright coercion robs you of your agency and choice, in an attempt to manufacture your consent which the law deems as necessary.

This occurs often without your knowledge because they don't teach this stuff in compulsory education (by design). Anytime you've simply clicked through one of those software EULAs, you've given consent but not necessarily had a choice.

I hope you re-examine those paper-thin limiting beliefs you hold.

Sophie's choice is made up situation by someone, who decided do serve the evil.

If you don't believe in humans free will, what's to point of living for you?

Falseness, and the teaching of false and limiting beliefs is one of the greater evils, and unlike many things its not just normative and thus can't be discounted as such because it results in actual loss at some point.

> But somehow, human's still live and coexist together.

That's purely survivor bias and our limited power to destroy each other. Organized warfare was not present until population centers outgrew their resources.

Sophie's choice is a framework, and its not made up, people have used it.

> If you don't believe in humans free will

I never said that, I said choices are very few. That's putting words in my mouth, and we're done.

We, as humans, have limited knowledge. One could teach false that truly believe in. That is why need to accept mistakes. To be able forgive each other. We need to be open for dialogue and cultivate a common language. To move on and build something valuable. Violence broke all of this and never change mind of opponent, it makes opposite. It strengthens the conviction.

I've heard your point before, many years ago with regard to Blu-ray protections.

From a security/threat perspective, that is true, which is why the threat model is turned into an iterative process that can be updated arbitrarily.

It is understood the amount of labor required to break the model is specialized labor and limited, and there are mechanisms that can be used to isolate and target the sources of that limited labor when they communicate about forbidden knowledge like the internals which are kept as trade secrets, and then punished under the law.

They already embed mechanisms that cause devices to brick. There were several devices where they had to issue a firmware update to get around a fault caused by one of their updates with regards to an internal battery that caused bricking when it lost power. This is very common, and if you can't prove they did it; its just natural end to the lifecycle where you'll have to payup again for a worse product.

-_-

Outside that tiny kernel, everything runs in a sandbox, in userspace and not kernel space. Graphics drivers? USB drivers? The games themselves? All in userspace, confined to minimum functionality, and W^X. Exploits in the USB drivers, WebKit, and games are actually fairly easy to find on the Switch, but useless for launching homebrew from. The last exploit bad enough to launch homebrew in Nintendo's software was over 4 years ago.

Some commentary from the developer (SciresM) who reimplemented it from scratch (everything below comes from https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/hygtnx/mesospher...):

"It is a completely unique microkernel with a cooperative (non-preemptive) scheduler. The kernel is secure -- so far as I can tell (as a reverse engineer and hacker), it has zero security bugs. They throw out years of backwards compatibility (they're not POSIX/UNIX), and they really, really benefit from it from a security and modularity PoV."

"Horizon's the only meaningful RTOS with a microkernel that I'm aware of (other than Fuschia). Everything's in userland -- filesystems, gpu (and other device drivers). The OS is capability-based and conceptually all about lots of different processes/drivers ("system modules") that host microservices. The fact that Nintendo designed such a rock-solid, modular, custom operating system for their consoles fascinates me."

I sincerely hope you are wrong because it engenders certain things which would indicate we have a very rough road ahead as a people.

Being able to record and save historically significant things and communicate about them when they are not offered to the general public in a way that can be saved for posterity is an incredibly important thing because it documents your history. We are looking at a black hole for at least the last 20 years.

There are news pieces that happened which I know and others my age noticed, about which cannot be found anywhere on the internet anymore because of the DMCA being used to remove references to it. These were historically significant and details things which just are no longer available. Without supporting evidence, people with a benefit to do so argue it never happened (deceitfully); when it did.

Additionally, while they won't say this, and I am not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice. The courts and any law passed by congress are required to have a legal authority that is based in one of the fundamental documents, which does not violate those documents (in any way).

Many of the judges ruling on the DMCA cases have failed to address the actual coercive and documented abuses this legislation has been used for over the short time its been upheld. The supreme court recently refused to hear a case about it, and the legislation appears to lack legal authority because its being used to thwart innovation, control and limit free speech and discussion and other things, in violation of our first amendment rights as people; and when there is a lack of basis for authority it becomes null and void (as Thomas Paine would say in 1776), or unconstitutional.

When its upheld and enforced despite lacking a basis of authority it calls into question important aspects of credibility of the courts and the rule of law, and whether we live in a democracy or actually in a fascist state. Incidentally, enforcing law without basis has been done historically in fascist states like for example East Germany before the wall came down.

That in its entirety is very concerning to me because this should never happen except in the latter; and that likely means a lot of death is ahead for almost all of us because those dynamics cause inevitable outcomes, as all intolerable and coercive acts enforced through law do eventually.

That being said, console-based piracy has been getting orders of magnitude harder in the past two decades.

Disney+ is losing about $1.5 billion per quarter. Despite being very close to maxing-out the number of subscribers they will ever get. They've tried raising prices which seems to be helping reduce the bleeding, but investors are now in a lawsuit with them to determine whether the profitability projections were ever reasonable (and, surprise, Disney might have been doing some classic Hollywood Accounting to make the streaming division look better).

Warner Bros. Discovery; well, $57 billion in debt with only about $40 billion in revenue per year... or $6B in profit per year. Financial struggles and pressure from investors? Immense. Their leverage ratio is 5:1 (whereas, 3:1 is considered the maximum for even remotely healthy). It's also kind of a big deal to have $57 billion in debt when the company's entire market cap is $28 billion, give or take. Thus HBO Max had a very stiff and sudden price hike a few months ago.

And so on. The media market just isn't great right now. The Disney+ and Warner struggles are also definitely coming into play when the Writer's Guild comes knocking asking for higher pay.

And on top of that, customers would be happier not having to have 10 different subscriptions to cover what they want to watch.

And big studios don't really have the option of lower budgets. They need to go bigger and bigger to meet the ever increasing demands of spectators, cheap production won't cut it anymore. It is not that you can't make good low budget productions, in fact, movie production is more accessible than it ever was, which is the other side of the problem. Big studios have a hard time competing against the creativity of thousands of small producers who have little to lose and a lot to win in pursuing bold ideas.

It is the same thing for AAA video games. Players want the latest ultra-HD, ultra-expensive stuff. And those who don't will typically turn to the indies.

The point is that there's often this online discussion with one guy saying 'modern movies suck' and the other saying 'nah, it's just what the people want.' But what's happening is quantifiably not what the people want. Hollywood (and AAA games) have become almost entirely creatively bankrupt, mostly due to going to the extremes of risk intolerance. They want creative endeavors to be more like factory line productions where a product is reliably created, ready to go on a tight schedule, and matches well to profit projections.

The reason there's an obsession over things like visuals is because that's one of the few things studios believe they can "improve" in a formulaic and safe way. It's not what people want let alone demand, it's simply an area movie (and AAA) companies see as being a low risk target for "improvement." Movie studios likely see ChatGPT as their savior. In reality, it will probably be their executioner.

[1] - https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

I disagree. Very few people are demanding studios spend huge amounts of money on their films. Spectators (that is, those who watch movies for entertainment) want good stories and "good enough" production values and if they have that they will be happy with inexpensive, even low budget, films. It does feel like our standards for TV have gotten a lot higher though. Creating quality content is difficult and risky so studios would rather push low effort material (remakes/sequels/weak stories) and try to make up for it with spectacle and popular actors/franchises which is usually enough to make people feel like they didn't totally waste their time/money but not always.

As you said, "good enough" is becoming increasingly accessible, but big studios aren't at much risk. They have tons of money for marketing, they control the MPA which means they control the ratings system, they also have massive influence over distribution meaning that smaller/independent films will have a harder time getting shown in most theaters or getting on many streaming platforms. Right now bad movies with bloated effects budgets still do better at the box office than quality films made by independent filmmakers which is exactly how the big studios like it. There's a lot of things competing for our attention these days and even looking only at movies having instant access to so many options on our phones or in our home theaters makes the trip to a movie theater less appealing.

When it comes to games I agree with you though. People really do want games that have great graphics and more content, although with the prices of video cards and most people struggling to afford their current lifestyle I expect that games which look great on consoles and lower end hardware will only get more popular.

It's been on my to-do list for a while now.

YouTube downloaders are just modern day VCRs. That they can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean they are only used to violate copyright. There are plenty of public domain videos on YouTube, and downloading them doesn't violate copyright.

VCRs save unencrypted inputs, they don’t break any DRM.

Now, breaking DRM is not illegal all over the world. So the YT download tools could decide to base themselves in jurisdictions where breaking DRM is legal, this is why you can download VLC which is French. That wouldn’t help with their Google listings however, as Google is American.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36106741 ("Music Company Asks Google to Delist 'YouTube Downloader' Wikipedia Article (torrentfreak.com)"; 3 days ago, 65 comments)

I as a software developer use it occasionally. And nearly every time (after a break of several months) there seem to be new tricks to learn/parameters to consider. At least if you some requirements on what format you need.

Introducing ad-blocker blockers is among one of those.

Another one I’ve noticed and I’m sure it’s not a coincidence; I always use YouTube via browser on mobile (has some great extensions including ad blockers) and I’ve noticed that the quality on the mobile browser is limited to 360p…

There’s no option to increase in the drop-down. I tested on various videos that have 1080p in the web browser and no dice.

There’s trying to squeeze every penny from YouTube

So currently my biggest incentive is to avoid the whole ad-heavy crap. And if I have something that I want to share to a group or my language class I use yt-dlp to ensure availability in different countries and no interruptions by ads.

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.yausername.dvd/

Fairly user friendly, but also far more powerful than third party YouTube downloader services you can find online.

I don't personally use it, but there's also Videomass for Windows.

https://jeanslack.github.io/Videomass/

These tools give you relatively user-friendly access to yt-dlp.

I understand the frustration of course but it's hard to me to complain about Google because I never thought Google search is independent unbiased.

https://www.4kdownload.com/

It is simply not true that we have censored anything or made ourselves "the arbiters of truth." I realized I previously explained how our news rankings work very poorly on Twitter but I subsequently put out a clarification in this help page with a much clearer (and detailed) explanation of how our news rankings actually work: https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/ne...

From that page: "When we apply our own ranking signals we do so in a strictly non-political manner, meaning we don’t evaluate or otherwise take into account any potential political bias or leanings of websites in our search result rankings."

Is there any transparency (an up-to-date and publicly-accessible list, for example) regarding exactly how many of these "extreme cases" there are, and which specific web sites are involved?

Is there any transparency regarding who exactly these "multiple non-governmental and non-political organizations" are, too?

For each "extreme case", is there any transparency regarding the assessments that were considered?

That said, super slow results I can understand :). But they are super fast according to all our metrics, so something else must be going on. There was a bug in DarkReader recently causing our page to be slow that was recently fixed -- not sure if that is related. In any case, if you want to email me (my email is my profile) then we can try to get to the bottom of it.

(As for my more subjective opinion, a privacy-first search engine looking at your real-world location by default might be making the wrong compromise in the first place.)

https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/duckduckgo-russian-disi...

> Last week, Gabriel Weinberg announced that his company would be combating Russian disinformation. “Like so many others I am sickened by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the gigantic humanitarian crisis it continues to create,” he wrote on Twitter. “At DuckDuckGo, we’ve been rolling out search updates that down-rank sites associated with Russian disinformation.” Although the move was more or less in line with how other major online platforms have been responding to the Russian invasion, pushback from DuckDuckGo’s user base has been pronounced. More than 30,000 users on Twitter have responded to Weinberg’s post with largely negative comments about the decision, accusing the company of engaging in censorship and injecting bias into search results. Breitbart ran a piece attacking DuckDuckGo as “Diet Google,” and high-profile libertarian YouTubers have also told their followers to stop using it.

I had poor word choice that got grossly misinterpreted, so I subsequently wrote the help article referenced above (https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/ne...) to give clarity: "we don’t evaluate or otherwise take into account any potential political bias or leanings of websites in our search result rankings."

In reality we never censored anything, nor do we have a disinformation/"truth" detector, nor did we go looking for any Russian narrative (or any other narrative for that matter). Instead, we just have essentially a spam detector that had detected some spam from Russian state sites. That's it.

> In reality we never censored anything, nor do we have a disinformation/"truth" detector

Sorry, those are conflicting statements.

I cannot determine which of the two statements are true.

I assume filtering search spam is complicated. I can believe the narrative where Russian disinformation actually resulted in what you call more "news spam" (i.e. news sites that have recently gamed their own search rank).

But it genuinely felt like you wanted to affect the war, and your leverage was "suppress Russian lies", which incidentally suppresses everyone's perception of what's going on. Not even Switzerland was neutral in the invasion of Ukraine, so I understand the incentives.

But you can't both support politically motivated filtering and claim to be neutral.

Let's say the real purpose was always to reduce "news spam", and Russia increased their news spam when invading Ukraine. Let's say both DuckDuckGo's search quality and trustworthiness depends on being mostly neutral. Given your feedback in this thread, I'll continue to recommend DuckDuckGo to friends. And I'll continue to use Kagi myself for now. :-)

Yes, that is correct. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36145183

There is a difference between my personal political opinion and the fact that DuckDuckGo itself acts non-politically, which is what actually happened.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33250463

Relevance and truth are two different things. It is not your job to be making calls on the second one, and I find your willful conflation of these concepts, and continuing attempts to deflect from the fact that you have done so to be a bit gross.

No, going by your own website, you outsource that judgment call to an unnamed and unaccountable list of third parties that apply unnamed and unauditable "objective" "journalistic standards" (which are not things that exist), which will then result in entire sites showing lower in the rankings an unspecified amount with no notification to the user that you have done this.

If this was actually about spam, there would be no need to bring "journalistic standards" into the equation. Spam is spam regardless of who it comes from. There would be no need to be so coy about all of this.

This is about news spam. The referenced organizations are evaluating a supposed news site's process on how they go about making news ("journalistic standards") and in particular what we care about is whether there really is any process/standard at all. That is, we're only looking for the very few sites that everyone agrees has no news process and is just a site purporting to be a news site but isn't in reality. From the page: "a well-documented history of a site’s extremely low journalistic standards, correlated with: routinely using spam or clickbait to artificially inflate traffic, consistently publishing stories without citing sources, censoring stories due to operating with very limited press freedom, and misleading readers about who owns, funds, and authors stories for the site." Spamming search engines to game rankings is the primary criteria here.

However, we note that "Many sites may occasionally do one or more of these things, but we take action very rarely, only in the most extreme cases." We're talking tiny amounts of domains here because "we must see at least three of these organizations independently assess a site as having extremely low journalistic standards and also see that none of these organizations have assessed the same site as having even somewhat robust journalistic standards." That means if the site has any pulse of a real news site then it doesn't get counted as spam.

And it also says for these spam sites: "We trust that users can find the right information for themselves, so even in these rare cases we do not remove these sites from our search results page. Additionally, impacted sites are not moved so far down in the results that they are effectively removed."

- Why can you not publish who these organizations are and what the "objective" standards they all use are?

- Why can you not notify users when they have entered a query that has results subjected to this rank modification? (And/or give them the ability to reverse it?)

- Why can you not just publish the naughty list?

- Why can you not publish anything objectively verifiable about this entire process?

I guess that reading between the lines, it could be inferred that some wrongthink is being censored, but I couldn't find any actual info

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/duckduckgo-yandex-ukraine

To be clear, we do not censor. Per the help article referenced above (https://help.duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/ne...): "we don’t evaluate or otherwise take into account any potential political bias or leanings of websites in our search result rankings."

https://videodownloader.world/