>>11817https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitter
>Nitter relied on a glitch that allowed creating a large amount of "guest accounts" using proxy servers in order to fetch content. It now relies [read: relied] on using registered account tokens to access the site, as Twitter has removed the ability to create guest accounts, and heavily restricts access to logged-out users.
Seems to me that what caused Nitter, XCancel, et al. to shut down were the cease-and-desist letters, not a technical reason. X can and did revoke API keys without much trouble, but Nitter used fake accounts which scraped GraphQL/JSON endpoints from the browser and converted them to display on the Nitter HTML interface. This made it hard to detect, if you had a sufficient number of fake accounts.
Probably, X's legal threats are without basis and in any event not enforceable in Europe. Since Nitter had the support of the NLnet Foundation, Nitter could well come back after consulting with lawyers.
>>11817Well, you already can make videos private, but then the videos are private.
Probably, there is no way to stop services like yt-dlp, although I've wondered if WebAssembly in browsers will cause YouTube to eventually build little browsers-within-your-browser as a kind of strong form of DRM. Imagine that every time you want to watch a YouTube video, you have to spin up a virtual machine.