NotHereToPlayGames

Are you being "dense" this morning on purpose? That screen does not "prove" being blocked! Does not prove being blocked at YouTube (which is what your post implies). Does not prove being blocked at Invidious. That "switch backend" notice pops up because the server-side is busy and needs you to "switch backend" so that your video can be served from another server.

You have me confused with somebody else. I signed up here in 2019 after being a reader for a year, two tops. I never heard of MSFN prior to circa 7yrs ago.

Since Invidious was brought up - This is the userscript that I use if a YouTube video is being "problematic" on YouTube. I actually *prefer* the YouTube web site 90% of the time (but only because of adblockers, userstyles, and userscripts). For those 10% problem-times, a simple tap of the Esc key reloads the video at Invidious and defaults to highest resolution. // ==UserScript== // @name - YouTube 00 - Invidious Redirect // @version 1.2.1 // @include http://www.youtube.com/* // @include https://www.youtube.com/* // @run-at document-start // @grant none // ==/UserScript== document.addEventListener('keydown', function(event) { if (event.key === 'Escape') { var a = 0; setInterval(function () { if (a === 0 && window.location.href.indexOf('watch?') > -1 && window.location.href.indexOf('list=WL') < 0) { a = '//inv.nadeko.net/watch?' + window.parent.location.href.split('?')[1] + '&quality=dash&quality_dash=best'; window.location.replace(a); } }, 10); } });

Um, proof of what? I'm not blocked on YouTube. I'm not blocked on Invidious. I use Invidious and see that screen at times, just click one of the non-underlined backend links, keep switching backends until the video loads.

One or two of the "cache" folders (forget which ones as I am at work and not at the home computer) can include HUNDREDS of tiny files in Chrome/Chromium-based browsers. Use this flag - chrome://flags/#use-angle Set it do OpenGL or D3D9 and manually remove those HUNDREDS of tiny files. They will not be recreated with OpenGL or D3D9 (aside from three or four *TINY* index files which I *keep* [again, deleting a non-tracking tiny file just results in excessive read/write/erase disc drive activity].

Agreed! Reminder that I only use Supermium from inside a VirtualBox VM. I monitor the project and continue to have high hopes for Supermium. Though I am a bit skeptic that I will ever use it on my host OS [reminder, I'm on Win10]. Yes, my Supermium cache folders are "bigger" than my Ungoogled Chromium - but not "2/3 times" and not "disastrously high". Edge uses all of these cache folders also, I'm assuming you are aware. I should point out that some of the folders that have "cache" in their name are inconsequential and the end-user does not gain anything by preventing them. The test is to monitor their file/folder size. If the size is a couple hundred bytes, or even kilobytes, but the size is CONSTANT from NEW PROFILE, to never opened any web sites, to having several dozen tabs open, then KEEP AS IS, there's no "tracking". If a first-run "cache" file/folder is the same size and doesn't change after opening dozens upon dozens of tabs, then there is no "tracking". I *keep* them! Undo read/write/erase disc drive activity to just have the SMALL file recreated all the time.

Supermium uses all of those folders in the same way "as that of Chrome". But you should NOT have a "disastrously high" cache IF YOU HAVE SET THE DATA DELETION ON CLOSING THE BROWSER. Personally, your BEST route of CONTROL is to use a LOADER. Supermium does not ship with a LOADER and I myself do not use Supermium "as it ships". This is for every end-usser to LEARN and ADJUST. No different than any browser, as far as that goes. There are "nuances" with ANY browser that only those that USE will LEARN and tweak accordingly. If you really really really have a vested interest in using Supermium, then you would already be studying how to resolve such nuances. Bottom line, my Supermium/Chrome/Chromium cache is NOT "disastrously high" but that is also because I have taken steps to NOT RUN AS IT/THEY SHIP. I don't think it is the responsibility of the Supermium Developer to "also" create a "loader" - but speaking solely for myself, I would never use it without a "loader". To each their own...

You're doing something wrong. My cache clears at every session-close.

Listen, I'm a Centrist. I vote Left. I vote Right. I do *NOT* want EITHER of our two parties to be "extremists". So the way I see it, Elon is actually SAVING our Country! What we have going on in American Politics right now is nothing more than something like a Welfare Queen abusing "the system". Once that Welfare Queen LIES and CHEATS to get something for FREE, ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE WHEN 'THE SYSTEM' TAKES THAT FREE STUFF AWAY! All that Elon is "trying to do" is TAKE AWAY FREE STUFF FROM THOSE THAT HAVE LIED AND CHEATED FOR *DECADES* TO RECEIVE THAT FREE STUFF! The *PROBLEM* here is that while Elon is "clawing back" WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, and there is a SH%TLO@D of it in American Politics, is that Elon himself has been the RECIPIENT of waste, fraud, and abuse over the years !!! SpaceX and Tesla have both received *billions* in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits for DECADES. Let's "claw back" that WASTE also !!! But... One man's trash is another man's treasure. One man's meat is another man's poison. One man's loss is another man's gain. What is useless to one person is valuable to another person. There is no accounting for taste. What is rain for one is a parade for another. What is yuck for one is yum for another. To each his own. Different strokes for different folks. Your mileage may vary. PENDULUM POLITICS is the problem!

Maybe... But so is any "minority" that can play the "race card", so is any "minority" that can claim their "kind" is discriminated against, et cetera. Here in America, our justice system is flawed, make no mistake about that. But... did O.J. Simpson "get away with murder" because he was "rich"? Or because he was a minority being accused by the majority. Again, don't read between the lines, the American justice system is flawed! I am not claiming that it isn't. Here in America, mob mentality rules!

Right there is your "first mistake". There are a ton of ad-blockers out there. You would have to try several to find one that fits your needs. They are not "one size fits all". SN's suggestions are the most popular. Odds are high that you will be happy with any one of them. But there are others. As far as that goes, "newbies" that don't really want to learn the full how-to to use an ad blocker are likely best served NOT by adding an extension to their browser, but using a browser with an "embedded" adblock feature. More "advanced" users tend not to use the embedded types, but that does not invalidate their "worth" for newbies/beginners (who later promote to non-embedded). You really have to "trial and error" and see for yourself which you like best.

There is NO WAY for us to answer that! We would have to know what web sites you were visiting before, during, and after this notification popped up.

The creator has already cited at GitHub that he is returning to normal defaults. I doubt that he will release an updated v126, but v132 will be back to normal defaults.

The creator of Supermium enabled it because users at the time requested it ( read here ) in order to be able to log into "Twitch" (whatever that is).

From work, I can only report on the latest official Edge v134 - which "should" be the same exact behavior as official Chrome v134. I could check in an official Chrome v134 if really needed, but I would rather not have to spend that much more time on this, to be honest. The identity page does not work when the flag is enabled (non-default) - The identity page does work when the flag is disabled (default) -

Nor are they coded to go off in March of 2025. The "time bomb activation" is improperly coded - it will crash on August 1 of 2024 it will crash on September 1 of 2024 it will crash on October 1 of 2024 it will crash on November 1 of 2024 it will crash on December 1 of 2024 But it will NOT crash on - January 1 of 2025 February 1 of 2025 March 1 of 2025 April 1 of 2025 May 1 of 2025 June 1 of 2025 July 1 of 2025 But then it WILL crash on - August 1 of 2026 September 1 of 2026 October 1 of 2026 November 1 of 2026 December 1 of 2026 But it will NOT crash on - January 1 of 2027 et cetera

It's bigger than that! The "problem" is that the author set a flag to ENABLE EXPERIMENTAL features to make v126 compatible with web sites requiring v13x. But then KEPT that EXPERIMENTAL flag ENABLED in v132 (enabling EXPERIMENTAL features that will not become stable/vetted/good until v135, or v138, or v140, etc). THIS IS A PROBLEM for folks thinking their browser is "secure" because these EXPERIMENTAL features are designated as EXPERIMENTAL for a reason!

Okay, that was more than "two words". But come on, you cannot fully answer your question in "two words". Oh, wait, I CAN answer in TWO WORDS == SUPERMIUM ONLY.

Supermium author changed the naming of an internal flag and also changed its default state. This is only in Supermium v126 R6 and higher. So all Supermium versions beginning with v126 R6 behave *DIFFERENTLY* than all other v126 and higher for *ALL OTHER* Chrome/Chromium forks. This causes *great confusion* for anybody UPGRADING and keeping a profile from R5 or older. Especially if that profile sets/unsets this flag. The UPGRADED profile now has this flag doing the OPPOSITE of why the user set/unset it in the first place. Most importantly - this is Supermium Only. Users that set flags now have to comb through all of their flags to see if the Supermium Author now has it doing the OPPOSITE of all other Chrome/Chromium Forks "on the planet". Unless, of course, those forks don't fork from upstream but fork from Supermium directly (I have not checked nor tried any forks of Supermium, if they do exist).

This thread is nothing more than a bunch of know-it-all's (myself included, lol) talking in circles because, well, because we know it all. There is now a REAL followup to this at GitHub (which I have been requesting all along) - https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1229 And this **IS** a Supermium issue! No other Chrome Forks changed the name of the flag and its default state, only Supermium did this, no others! "Your subjectivity has biased your objectivity."

I have 'normal' Chrome v122 and 'normal' Edge at work. Both of them display the identity page correctly. Unknown version of Edge (company IT updates it often). I can prevent company IT from updating my Chrome v122. I also can *not* run any Ungoogled at work. I can only run Official Chrome or Official Edge. But have more control over which version of Official Chrome. I've tried over a DOZEN different forks of Chrome/Chromium v126, ungoogled and normal, clienthints enabled/disabled, different useragents, comparing flags/command switches - this really is something that is *ONLY* happening in Supermium R6 and higher. It is not flag-related, it is not client hints, it is not user agent, it is something in Supermium R6 and higher that DOES NOT EXIST in any other v126. It would be one thing if a flag or command switch solved this in OTHER v126's also, but again, this is something that is happening *ONLY* in Supermium R6 and higher (requiring a flag to fix). Again, it would be one thing if Browser X v126 was effected and it required the flag *AND* Supermium R6 v126 was effected and it required the flag. THERE ARE NO OTHER v126's THAT NEED THIS FLAG TO RENDER THAT PAGE. NO OTHER CHROME FORKS ARE EFFECTED. NONE! Okay, none that I can find (there are a LOT of forks!), and I spent all weekend HUNTING. This is something *ISOLATED* to Supermium R6 and higher.

Supermium R6 and higher is BROKEN. Users should consider R5 as the most-recent working version of Supermium. Creator should be brought to this attention at GitHub (will not be by me!). Out of the box, no changes, R5 works (for cited web site) in XP and in 10. Out of the box, no changes, R6 does not work (for cited web site) in XP or in 10. R5 and R6 are both v126's and I cannot find any other Chrome/Chromium v126's to not work for the cited web site. This is a Supermium R6 and higher issue ONLY. It's not going to "go away" in new releases without the creator addressing whatever he introduced in R6 and is carrying over to everything newer. That's the best I can gather, at least. I really strongly and wholeheartedly feel this needs addressed at GitHub (again, will not be by me!).

Keyword is "suggested". VistaLover would have to stop back in and tell us if he is or is not enabling/disabling. Until then, we should not be "guessing" VistaLover's configuration. As a test, we could revert the flag and add this polyfill. At the very least rule out one of the flag features. https://glitch.com/edit/#!/close-watcher-demo?path=polyfill.js

no sh#t... they communicate through headers... PERIOD... done here, you just want to confuse issues instead of solve them...