Closed lambdadog closed 3 years ago
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago An immediately actionable step that could be taken is to note the use of anti-captcha.com in Invidious somewhere. Currently the only way to find out about this is to look through the source code itself, and I think many users who want to avoid google poison also care about issues such as this and would appreciate being notified that Invidious is using them.
TheFrenchGhosty
commented
4 years ago Hello, I am the person that suggested the use of anti-captcha.
I really care about those issue and it's something we really checked before.
We spend some time analyzing the company, and came to the conclusion that this is a real company (it's not run by one guy from his garage), that provide "acceptable" work with acceptable to okay salary for people that live in countries with really low salary.
From what we gathered the salary they offer to their worker is on par with the medium salary of those countries, however the work they do is "easier" (physically) that what those countries could propose them.
Most of those countries are third world countries where the only work available is in mining / food production for first world country (literally us), anti-captcha allow some of those people to at least avoid this by getting an okay salary doing "easy" work.
In my opinion this is okay, yes it could be better but this is, in my opinion, better for people to solve captcha than to produce stuff for a company that don't care about their life.
This is a far deeper issue than just Invidious and Anti-captcha, and I don't think that stopping giving them this work will make things better.
unixfox
commented
4 years ago I've successfully used a program like uncaptcha2 with the help of puppeteer in order to solve the audio version of Google reCAPTCHA.
This is certainly another possible way to avoid using anti-captcha and due to the fact that Invidious solve a reCAPTCHA only every 3 hours, Google may not detect that it's a not a human that is solving the audio reCAPTCHA.
The main issue is that it's not 100% reliable and has a major annoyance:
I plan on doing a distributed audio reCAPTCHA solving solution and offering it as a clone of the API of anti-captcha so that every Invidious instance owner can just change the API URL in the source code and profit a CAPTCHA free experience. It just takes time to do it but I'm certain that it will benefit to the community.
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago I would love to see that, @unixfox ! While it might not be viable for a large instance like the flagship, for people hosting their own instances I imagine it could work well
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago @TheFrenchGhosty I appreciate the time that you and those involved took to look into the company.
That said, I do personally still believe this is an issue. Looking at their site, anti-captcha.com reads as an incredibly stressful job to perform with the metaphorical guillotine of losing your livelyhood hanging over your head at all moments if you fill out too many captchas wrong (as we all know, something very easy to do). They seem to particularly take pride in banning workers quickly when they see that they're "cheating".
I agree that there's no good answer here. I wish there was something that I could open up with and say, "let's replace anti-captcha.com with this solution I have that isn't as exploitative!", but at the very least I want Invidious to be open about using such services for now instead of it just staying tucked away in the source code where your average end-user will never hear about it.
m4teh
commented
4 years ago May I ask what exactly makes paying individuals to fulfill a market demand and make your life easier exploitative? Are you suggesting free humans shouldn't have the freedom of voluntary employment, and therefore further pushing people in to economic distress? The only person who gets to decide if their wage is enough is the person voluntary agreeing to do the job. Nobody would agree to do a job that they felt was an unfair market wage for their skillset or competencies. The only logical free market solution that I see to this is create your own 'ethical' captcha solving business if you're that concerned.
elypter
commented
4 years ago people are getting exploited because they are being tricked or pressured not because they enjoy it. the only kind of people who seem to love it are those who see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and advocate explotive behavior just because "choice" or "freedom". in reality this is just instinctive submissive to what they percieve as alpha male, even if its just a company or "the market"
m4teh
commented
4 years ago I’m sorry, everything you just said is abstract, illogical, unsound and confusing. I’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. You’re not helping your cause. All I see is a lot of thumbs down and no responses of substance to what looks to be a peaceful and logical/rational/free market solution, if I understand this ‘issue’ properly.
How are people being tricked? Who are these people being tricked? Have you surveyed people working in this field? How do you know all of this? Where can I find out more about this crusade against people filling out captchas? Why is the captcha completion industry the focus of your attention? Do captcha crusaders understand Austrian economics or freedom of individual choice? What makes this job of completing captchas exploitative, over any other job that someone might do, like say a toilet or hazmat cleaner? Is the concern about how much money people are being paid? If so, how do you claim to know what someone is worth, or should be paid, more than they themselves know what they’re worth?
This whole thing is very confusing to me. If an entrepreneur has come along and created a new industry within a third world (as an example like this may be), and then hired two hundred people to complete captchas. How has he exploited those he employed by providing an income they otherwise wouldn’t have had without this opportunity? Hasn’t the entrepreneur actually improved the lives of 200 people by granting them another source of financial income? They would be worse off without it, or they wouldn’t agree to trade their time for money, right? Assuming criminality like slavery or coercion isn’t involved. What if xy and z captcha solver hears that EthicalCapcthaCo just opened up down the road and offers a higher pay rate and better conditions. Could she/he leverage his or her new experience at the current job and seek out a better standard?
On 23 Jun 2020, at 4:59 am, elypter notifications@github.com wrote:
people are getting exploited because they are being tricked or pressured not because they enjoy it. the only kind of people who seem to love it are those who see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires and advocate explotive behavior just because "choice" or "freedom". in reality this is just instinctive submissive to what they percieve as alpha male, even if its just a company or "the market"
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
Perflyst
commented
4 years ago How are people being tricked?
I dont know, people who work there are not forced to work there.
Who are these people being tricked?
They are not.
Have you surveyed people working in this field?
No, but I registered as worker on their website and "worked" around an hour to test this out.
How do you know all of this?
Online reviews, own experience.
Where can I find out more about this crusade against people filling out captchas?
crusade?!
Why is the captcha completion industry the focus of your attention?
Google blocks the access to youtube.com with captcha if they saw too many requests from the same IP. Therefore we need to solve a captcha to access the youtube.com data again. This hits only big instances.
Do captcha crusaders understand Austrian economics or freedom of individual choice?
I cant answer that, I dont know if they do.
What makes this job of completing captchas exploitative, over any other job that someone might do, like say a toilet or hazmat cleaner?
I think it is way better than a cleaner in this country.
Is the concern about how much money people are being paid? If so, how do you claim to know what someone is worth, or should be paid, more than they themselves know what they’re worth?
Yes, it is all about money. We dont claim anything, we just compare our first world standard with theirs and do understand that they get less than us. We did not decide that. We cant change it with a finger snaps
They would be worse off without it, or they wouldn’t agree to trade their time for money, right?
Most likely, but just because it is worse somewhere else it doesnt mean it is good here.
m4teh
commented
4 years ago Thanks for the response @Perflyst. I feel somewhat more confident I'm not losing my mind now. I say crusader because this is the second anti-captcha sentiment I've seen lurking in open source projects. The other was in the searx issues, where the social justice warriors there deleted my comment out of the thread for merely questioning the same exploitation logic. Who doesn't love a bit of censorship of opposing opinions. Additionally I say crusader as I suspect the anti-captcha people are in a collective group of some sort, given the amount of up votes this issue received within hours of posting.
So is anyone able to shed some light on this whole captcha-completion-is-expliotation virtue signalling? My guess is these well intentioned people don't realize that the very people they think they're helping are actually getting screwed if their jobs/income go away.
elypter
commented
4 years ago where the social justice warriors
at leat you self proclaim that you are on the other side of justice
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago I posted the link on social media after hearing a number of other people discuss how they disliked that invidious was using solutions like anti-captcha, because I like invidious and I'd at least like to see an open discussion about this sort of thing taken to it. That's where the :+1: and :heart: s are coming from.
With regards to what exploitation is going on, I'll do my best to explain if you give me a little more time. I imagine that there are a number of people who will disagree with my fundamental premise and be unwilling to keep reading but that's fine IMO, as long as the discussion is happening.
Under capitalism (without sufficient government safety nets), you are coerced into work. This is under threat of death and starving in the streets.
For many of us, given where this conversation is taking place, I imagine we have cushy tech jobs and this feels quite separated from us. Like, sure, if you lose your job you can die, but you can always get another job, right? But this isn't the case for everyone. For many in the world, getting a job (or getting a job/enough jobs to give them what they need for survival) is not guaranteed. To start, an easy example to talk about is physical disability.
For those with a physical disability, if their family, friends, or government are unwilling or unable to support them, they are often forced into the decision between running their body and/or mind into the ground or literally dying in the streets, under capitalism's threat of withholding necessary resources for survival.
You may say "well, "their family, friends, or government being unable or unwilling to support them" is a bit theoretical, even a small amount of support can help take that load off and make it manageable and allow them to possibly get an education or move forward in a career, I imagine very few physically disabled people are in that situation where none of those things are possible." Physically disabled people are easy to understand, but unless they intersect with another disadvantaged group, you're right, they're likely to often have resources they're able tap to make things manageable.
But, all disadvantaged groups are not like this. While physical disability is relatively random and an entire family, or group of friends, is unlikely to be physically disabled, consider oppressed groups that are hereditary for a moment:
In this group falls race, poverty, nationality, caste, and many other similar constructs. For these people it's unlikely that they will be able to be supported by family, government, or friends -- their friends and family are often in the same disadvantaged group or similar to them, and the government often doesn't feel very inclined to support them unless it's particularly progressive.
This is where high-stress, cheap labor jobs like sweatshops and mechanical turk-like systems come in. These jobs target people who are unable to get a better job within reason, and use them for great profit. I appreciate that @Perflyst took time to sign up for the job for an hour and experience it when evaluating it, but it's truly impossible to evaluate without the context of someone living in such a disadvantaged position that they would use a job like this as one of their main sources of income.
anti-captcha.com in particular advertises "the cheapest rates" and "how quickly they ban cheaters" which to me signals paying workers cheaply and acting as a blade always hanging over their worker's necks, where if they make too many mistakes on a task I think we can all agree is difficult to consistently perform perfectly, they lose their source of income.
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago I think that everything I've said here is fairly agreeable if you follow the lines of logic. Unfortunately, it's the last step which raises the most questions: What should we do about this?
If you stop supporting them, are you hurting the workers by taking away jobs more, or are you hurting the exploitative business by taking away customers more. Does "voting with your money" even work in this situation?
While I think @m4teh was being dishonest in their argument, they do present what's instantly the most agreeable solution: Starting one's own ethical captcha solving business. Unfortunately, along with these two concerns I've mentioned above, a third instantly comes up: How will such a business survive alongside exploitative ones?
The answer is, it likely won't. The systems at work encourage and even require exploitation for a business's survival and success, especially in a competition heavy market.
So, among the other two options, which is best? I don't know the answer to that, but that's why I started this thread as a discussion and not a solid suggestion for change. It's a difficult problem, but it has to be our responsibility as software developers to make ethics our concern as well.
As I suggested above, an immediate first step that I feel very strongly about being implemented is some sort of notice that services like anti-captcha.com are in use by Invidious, so people who aren't actual developers like me don't have to hunt through the source code to find out about it so we can evaluate if we're comfortable using software that takes advantage of these kinds of services.
m4teh
commented
4 years ago Oh dear. Firstly, thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I had a feeling it would be something along these lines. Let me explain capitalism to you because you've been indoctrinated educated wrong and I'm going to enable you to open your mind and worldview.
I have a hotdog stand and sell hotdogs for $3. You walk past. You want the hotdog more than you want your $3, and I want your $3 more than I want my hotdog. So we voluntarily exchange value. Both parties profit. You get what you want and I get what I want. The exchange is voluntary. This is the free market. That is capitalism.
It is responsible for every piece of technology and luxury you use and have in your life now. It is responsible for the high standard of living and individuality many Western countries allow for currently.
The government has no money. It uses money stolen/extorted/expropriated from productive individuals and redistributes it to those less productive. Which is the most inefficient and ineffective possible method of welfare. Government, taxation, socialism, communism is simply slavery. Government is a violent monopoly on force that puts a claim of ownership on you and threatens (and actually does) lock people in rape cages for refusal to comply with taxation, having the fruits of your labour stolen. Money that I work for and earned. Your body is your private property, your labour is your private property.
The only moral welfare system is charity. The only moral economic model is capitalism. Everything else is slavery and highly immoral. People often don't make the connection easily though.
You're obviously a genuinely well meaning individual who wants better for people, and I hope I've planted a seed. But advocating for immoral, violent, slavery type dictates not only makes you the problem, but makes the very thing you are trying to fight against even worse.
Not only is government criminally funded like a mafia holding a gun at you, but it then entrenches itself in/ and creates an institutionalised banking cartel. This is where all of the problems you associate with capitalism lay. All the poverty and inequality is literally the result of bankers that have taken over the earth. Inflating the money supply, which enriches the 1% at the expense of all of us. This is why Bitcoin was created and has so much traction. You steal the power away from the cartel by opting out of fiat currency.
I'm a libertarian/anarchist. I'm not left, right, up, down. I want freedom. Freedom to be left alone, not violently coerced or ruled over. Governments have killed hundreds of millions of their own citizens over the centuries imposing edicts like what you think is correct. We don't have any free markets left anymore. If there's a regulation or law standing in the way, it's not a free market. Luckily there are newly founded countries like anarcho-capitalist Liberland starting up trying to fill this much needed void.
I believe a system of completely free markets can solve all of the worlds problems. That's how living standards, conditions, poverty, and almost everything else is fixed. Creating your own EthicalCaptchaCo is literally the free market solution to your concern. Forcing world views and people to do what you will never work. Ever. The only way to affect change is by creating a better competing product or service. This includes in the realm of ethical alternatives like this too. People will want to work for you over the other 'exploitative' companies, and people wanting captcha solving services will now have that option if it's of value to them.
I highly recommend the book "Economics in one lesson" by Henzy Hazlitt. It's a quick read and will teach you more about economics than most people on earth understand today. If everybody read it, the world would be a better place.
gripped
commented
4 years ago This issue is lacking in any evidence of exploitation that I can see ? Just an assumption that as people are being paid to complete a monotonous task they are being exploited.
Which they may well be, but along with billions of other people with monotonous jobs.
I have my own private invidious instance. I have never been blocked, or seen a captcha, so have never investigated the 'anti-captcha' functionality of invidious until just now:
It's not automatic. A key is needed. So if it bothers anyone they can run an instance with no 'anti-captcha'. Which is the default. Or create a PR using a more ethical (if such a thing exists) 'anti-captcha' service.
What appears to being said though is "anti-captcha is exploitative, just believe me, so stop using it."
Perflyst
commented
4 years ago Thank you for the discussion but please stay on topic and actually evaluate an alternative to anti captcha services.
m4teh
commented
4 years ago Thank you for the discussion but please stay on topic and actually evaluate an alternative to anti captcha services.
The above discussion is relevant. The fundamentals of the initial premise are being challenged, due to being based on incorrect or unsound logic; that there is in fact no need to seek alternatives. That's what the discussion intends to (and appears to have) showcase(d).
gripped
commented
4 years ago How you think my comment is off topic is bewildering ! Surely if we are to evaluate less exploitative solutions to bypassing captcha some facts about the current solution are necessary ? If I don't know the level of exploitativeness of anti-captcha, how can I judge whether an alternative is less or more so ? Surreal :) Anyway I don't use it. I'll leave you all to it.
Perflyst
commented
4 years ago The fact is that no worker from the third world country should work for us to consume more or less trivial things. In my opinion the aim is to find a technical solution as @unixfox proposed in https://github.com/omarroth/invidious/issues/1256#issuecomment-646050136
unixfox
commented
4 years ago I asked perflyst to hide some comments because this issue is moving out of the initial subject which is talking about alternatives to anti-captcha and not about if anti-captcha is an ideal solution or not for Invidious.
If you would like to talk about "if the main solution to solve the Google reCAPTCHA is bad or good" then feel free to open another issue.
My main concern is that I feel like this discussion is refraining the potential peoples that would talk about the alternatives because this issue is too focused on the ethics of using anti-captcha. I'm really interested to see if someone else would come up with another good solution and I don't want to unsubscribe of this issue because it's not talking about the alternatives of anti-captcha anymore.
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago I'm not certain I understand why Perflyst's "people are not being tricked or forced to work there" comment and m4teh's comments where they quiz me on how this could possibly be exploitative remain while mine that responds to them and attempts to explain the opposite side of the discussion are hidden.
I can understand the wish to hide the discussion on the nature of the ethics of this situation so we can focus on the technical side, but completely hiding one side of the argument while only hiding the late rebuttals on the other side seems a little disingenuous to me.
cjslep
commented
4 years ago All I see is a lot of thumbs down and no responses of substance
As one of the thumbs-down-ers: @m4teh, I don't think you're going to get a substantive response. As soon as you opened with your very first reply with
May I ask
The answer should have been "no". It's been a massive derail into a pseudo-ethical discussion on what should be a technical issue with a very reasonable, limited request by @lambdadog:
even if they're just configurable for personal instances.
and it seems everyone else is on-board with the idea of giving the user the freedom (and we know how you feel about freedom) to personally choose a technical alternative, if one can be found. Everyone else seems to recognize that, independent of each of our internal motivations, perhaps offering this choice would be a net positive for everyone, even if an individual person is not motivated to opt-in.
Perhaps let the good hardworking folks create this opt-in alternative option. And then after it launches in invidious, evangelizing your personal ethical system of "opt-out is morally right" wherever it pleases you and compete against the "opt-in" sinners. Right now your derails are denying that other side the freedom to even compete with you.
Edit: With my sincerest apologies to the invidious folks. Please feel free to mark this as off-topic or delete it as you see fit.
elypter
commented
4 years ago going back to the technical side of the issue i think there are the following ways and probably many more to tackle it
many of these points reflect ideas and suggestions spread across many different issues. unfortunately i dont have those at hand but im confident they will resurface if there is interest. possibilities are plentiful. the difficulty is to decide the most effective path.
artshevtsov
commented
4 years ago Another solution is to use dynamic mobile proxies with multiport which make every request from new 3G/4G ip address. Multiport proxy costs ~$41 per month. (I have tested this service https://airsocks.in/en#tariffs, you can test any proxy type for free for a few hours). We talked about that with Omarroth, and i have tested everything locally - it worked perfectly. I was surprised when I saw that invidious is using anticaptcha to solve that issue with youtube request limits from one ip.
When I made my tests, I have found a line in a source code with http client initialization and hardcoded the proxy address and port there. I asked to add a config option for proxy host and port here at issues some time before, but it is still not implemented 😅
I am not familiar with crystal lang. It would be great if somebody can make a pull request and implement this simple config options for http client. I have an old example for api-only branch here: https://github.com/omarroth/invidious/compare/api-only...artshevtsov:api-only
elypter
commented
4 years ago while expensive it seems to be a useful piece to the puzzle. mobile ips are clearly labled as consumer devices and usually many people share one ip so they might go easy on the rate limiting. multiport could however be a problem. most captchas are prevented by users having a google cookie. multiport only makes sense if you dont use a cookie because you have a new ip each connection. that could mean that you have to solve an initial captcha every time. no idea if google is currently asking for this but they could demand it without hurting regular users. would be a lot better if you could change ip manually.
unixfox
commented
4 years ago mobile ips are clearly labled as consumer devices and usually many people share one ip so they might go easy on the rate limiting.
From my experience, Google doesn't lower their rate limit for consumers IPs. It's the same rate limit for everyone. The reason why you would be rate limited quicker on a hosting provider IP is that Google takes into account a whole IP block not just your IP and the odds of having someone doing a lot of requests to Google are more common in hosting provider VPS than on a computer behind a home connection.
Another solution is to use dynamic mobile proxies with multiport which make every request from new 3G/4G ip address. Multiport proxy costs ~$41 per month. (I have tested this service airsocks.in/en#tariffs, you can test any proxy type for free for a few hours). We talked about that with Omarroth, and i have tested everything locally - it worked perfectly. I was surprised when I saw that invidious is using anticaptcha to solve that issue with youtube request limits from one ip.
You don't really have to find proxies specifically from home connection or cellular connection, you just need a bunch of clean IPs. Google supports IPv6 and there are way more IP blocks in IPv6 so if you were to find a provider of IPv6 proxies and those proxies have clean IP then you found a way less expensive solution.
The big issue with your solution is that the bandwidth is very low (max 15 Mbit/s) and this bandwidth is very crucial for a service like Invidious that proxy actual videos not just text. Imagine using that service with a lot of users watching videos, the Invidious instance would have huge playback issues.
artshevtsov
commented
4 years ago A lot of developers are using an api-only branch for youtube data fetching, bandwidth is not a problem for such use case.
The big issue with your solution is that the bandwidth is very low (max 15 Mbit/s) and this bandwidth is very crucial for a service like Invidious that proxy actual videos not just text. Imagine using that service with a lot of users watching videos, the Invidious instance would have huge playback issues.
There are a lot of dynamic proxy services with an APIs which allow to rotate ipv4/ipv6 address when you need with or without any delay depending on tariff options. When google shows captcha, invidious can rotate proxy ip and repeat the request.
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago A lot of developers are using an api-only branch for youtube data fetching, bandwidth is not a problem for such use case.
Can you explain what exactly the api-only branch is doing, @artshevtsov? Is it using the youtube API for searching, etc, but still using non-API mechanisms to fetch the actual video and proxy it?
There are a lot of dynamic proxy services with an APIs which allow to rotate ipv4/ipv6 address when you need with or without any delay depending on tariff options.
The biggest concern with this solution to me is that the proxy services mentioned are likely used for a lot of spammy and malicious behavior and you may be likely to get a captcha right off the bat when rotating a good percentage of the time. I'd love to see some actual metrics from using this method though that might prove me wrong.
lambdadog
commented
4 years ago With regards to needing "clean IPs", I'm curious of the reality of how google handles "dirty IPs" in this case. Are we familiar with how long it takes for them to be considered clean again?
artshevtsov
commented
4 years ago You can read about the API functionality here:
https://github.com/omarroth/invidious/wiki/API
This project doesn’t use youtube API.
Can you explain what exactly the api-only branch is doing, @artshevtsov? Is it using the youtube API for searching, etc, but still using non-API mechanisms to fetch the actual video and proxy it?
unixfox
commented
3 years ago I just found this service that doesn't involve humans for solving Google Recaptcha: https://capmonster.cloud/en/, it's cheaper than anti-captcha and compatible with anti-captcha API so technically everyone can start using it thanks to #1473.
captcha_api_url: https://api.capmonster.cloud
captcha_key: captcha key from capmonster dashboard@firemasterk Let's move here.
That's not normal. Are you running multiple instances of Invidious at the same time? Do you often restart Invidious?
FireMasterK
commented
3 years ago Nope, just one instance of Invidious. I do restart Invidious every hour, maybe I should change it to 3 hours?
Also, is anyone aware if Invidious saves the cookies obtained so there's no need to get new ones next time on restart?
unixfox
commented
3 years ago Yes Invidious should store the cookies inside the config.yaml. If it doesn't then there is a permission issue.
Perflyst
commented
3 years ago does anyone know how this specific service works in more detail?
FireMasterK
commented
3 years ago Yes Invidious should store the cookies inside the config.yaml. If it doesn't then there is a permission issue.
Is this true even with docker? Isn't the config overridden by the environment variable?
unixfox
commented
3 years ago Yes Invidious should store the cookies inside the config.yaml. If it doesn't then there is a permission issue.
Is this true even with docker? Isn't the config overridden by the environment variable?
Yes. I'm using the Docker image and you just need to mount the config.yml into the container.
unixfox
commented
3 years ago @FireMasterK do you have less reCAPTCHA attempts now that you save the config.yml between each restart?
unixfox
commented
3 years ago @Perflyst
does anyone know how this specific service works in more detail?
Well the images that Google gives for the captcha can be recognized by for example an image recognition system. There are a lot of systems like this on the market, here is one from Microsoft: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/computer-vision/
By associating a system like this and an automated browser, the company (capmonster) is able to automate this reCAPTCHA solving without any human interaction.
You can find a demo of what I explained on my twitter: https://nitter.snopyta.org/unixf0x/status/1075068461720702979 (sorry it's in French but just play the video).
FireMasterK
commented
3 years ago @FireMasterK do you have less reCAPTCHA attempts now that you save the config.yml between each restart?
I have not tinkered with my docker-compose file yet, I'll do so soon today.
github-actions[bot]
commented
3 years ago This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any activity in it in the last 30 days. If this is still applicable to the current version of Invidious feel free to open a new issue.
Invidious is currently using https://anti-captcha.com to solve and bypass captchas.
I and many others feel negatively about supporting an exploitative mechanical turk-like company to enable invidious to continue to function. I'd very much like to start a discussion around more ethical alternatives to handling Google captchas.
There will certainly have to be tradeoffs to make this happen, but I'd like to see invidious be as ethical a piece of software as possible and I think a big first step is finding a way to stop supporting harmful and exploitative services like anti-captcha.com.
Ideally I'd like to see this issue left open as an open discussion about alternatives, even if they're just configurable for personal instances.