It would appear many of the big tech companies are consolidating and really cracking down on third party apps, APIs, and any alternative services of their products. Shame to see privacy options...
It would appear many of the big tech companies are consolidating and really cracking down on third party apps, APIs, and any alternative services of their products. Shame to see privacy options getting more limited and big tech forcing people to move to their platform without add blockers, pay for no ads, or simply move to a new service and miss out on the massive libraries big tech has to offer.
There will always be a resistance, even if it shrinks or becomes less accessible. Some of us are just inexorably driven to maintain control of our own computers, and we'll continue to find ways to...
There will always be a resistance, even if it shrinks or becomes less accessible. Some of us are just inexorably driven to maintain control of our own computers, and we'll continue to find ways to do it.
I think it's incredible that all tracking and data gathering that's done to us, all the spying and monitoring, is for advertising. Advertising to get us to buy things we don't want or need,...
I think it's incredible that all tracking and data gathering that's done to us, all the spying and monitoring, is for advertising. Advertising to get us to buy things we don't want or need, getting us to look at little boxes so we want the thing. I don't know the word to describe this experience but it's like realising your long-standing paranoia was because the Peeping Tom you've been avoiding only wanted you to buy a new shed/car/dress/PPI/wallpaper. Once I realised that I found it much easier to ignore adverts pushed into my face.
There's advertising, which I find easy enough to ignore if I do encounter it somehow, but all the tracking also goes into trying to figure out how to make their apps/sites more addictive so they...
There's advertising, which I find easy enough to ignore if I do encounter it somehow, but all the tracking also goes into trying to figure out how to make their apps/sites more addictive so they can have more engagement. That's technically still done so they can advertise more but it's the manipulation and stealing of attention that I can't stand.
Sneaky ways yes, kind of impressive the lengths they'll go to to get your eyeballs looking at something. Now I see it, it sort of doesn't affect me as much. Like that bit in the film The Labyrinth...
Sneaky ways yes, kind of impressive the lengths they'll go to to get your eyeballs looking at something.
Now I see it, it sort of doesn't affect me as much. Like that bit in the film The Labyrinth "you have no power over me".
Agreed. A lightbulb moment comes to fruition over time when researching and getting into the privacy enthusiast movement. Many strike a balance between privacy and convenience. Some sacrifice time...
Agreed. A lightbulb moment comes to fruition over time when researching and getting into the privacy enthusiast movement. Many strike a balance between privacy and convenience. Some sacrifice time for privacy. I despise having to sit through video advertisements before getting to the content I wish to see. I grew up with enough advertisement on cable television to last me a lifetime. Rather not spend more time watching advertisements on Youtube, Hulu, etc. about products I really don’t care about. Thank you for sharing and calling out the “paranoia” which tends to plague us at one point or another.
Harvesting and selling data to third parties after paying the premium fee is a dirtbag move. Unfortunately, Google has always had this business model and is addicted to it like crack. I can’t ever...
Harvesting and selling data to third parties after paying the premium fee is a dirtbag move. Unfortunately, Google has always had this business model and is addicted to it like crack. I can’t ever see the board allowing for Google to move away from a ad-centric, data harvesting, thir party sellout model to something more akin to a Apple (who as far as I know, scrapes data, but hordes it to themselves). I still hold out hope they will figure it out and I still refuse to make a Google account out of principle. Time will tell what happens as the universe unfolds itself in this new era of the internet.
Does it? In fact, does Google sell customer data at all? I was under the impression that it did not. I thought Google uses data directly to target their own ads through Adsense. Since they have...
Does it? In fact, does Google sell customer data at all? I was under the impression that it did not. I thought Google uses data directly to target their own ads through Adsense. Since they have their own ad platform, they can utilize the data directly without giving the data to third parties.
Yeah, this is one of the mythos about tech companies that just isn't true. You even heard Congresspeople peddling it. Customer data is Google's lifeblood - it's what makes using their ad platform...
Yeah, this is one of the mythos about tech companies that just isn't true. You even heard Congresspeople peddling it. Customer data is Google's lifeblood - it's what makes using their ad platform so attractive. Why on earth would they sell it? And lose their competitive advantage?
But if you don’t see any ads, what ad space are they selling? That’s like saying people who buy, for example, corn futures are buying actual corn. Yes, technically they are. But you would be...
But if you don’t see any ads, what ad space are they selling?
That’s like saying people who buy, for example, corn futures are buying actual corn. Yes, technically they are. But you would be ignoring the fact that those futures are always sold before the future comes to term. So in reality they are not buying corn. If you ignore the context around the financial transaction, you can say it means whatever you want.
If Google never shows you an ad, they do not make money off the data. So you can’t claim they sell your data if they never exchange your data for money.
I honestly don't mind my data being used for marketing, it's how the data is handled and stored. I basically have no control over it, so I give as little as possible; even going so far as to just...
I honestly don't mind my data being used for marketing, it's how the data is handled and stored. I basically have no control over it, so I give as little as possible; even going so far as to just not engaging at all.
"The contemporary usage of Luddite has the machine-smashing part correct — but that’s about all it gets right" https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you-should-be-one-too-163172 You may enjoy...
Exemplary
"The contemporary usage of Luddite has the machine-smashing part correct — but that’s about all it gets right"
First, the Luddites were not indiscriminate. They were intentional and purposeful about which machines they smashed. They targeted those owned by manufacturers who were known to pay low wages, disregard workers’ safety, and/or speed up the pace of work. Even within a single factory — which would contain machines owned by different capitalists — some machines were destroyed and others pardoned depending on the business practices of their owners.
Second, the Luddites were not ignorant. Smashing machines was not a kneejerk reaction to new technology, but a tactical response by workers based on their understanding of how owners were using those machines to make labour conditions more exploitative. As historian David Noble puts it, they understood “technology in the present tense”, by analysing its immediate, material impacts and acting accordingly.
Luddism was a working-class movement opposed to the political consequences of industrial capitalism. The Luddites wanted technology to be deployed in ways that made work more humane and gave workers more autonomy. The bosses, on the other hand, wanted to drive down costs and increase productivity.
Third, the Luddites were not against innovation. Many of the technologies they destroyed weren’t even new inventions. As historian Adrian Randall points out, one machine they targeted, the gig mill, had been used for more than a century in textile manufacturing. Similarly, the power loom had been used for decades before the Luddite uprisings.
It wasn’t the invention of these machines that provoked the Luddites to action. They only banded together once factory owners began using these machines to displace and disempower workers.
The factory owners won in the end: they succeeded in convincing the state to make “frame breaking” a treasonous crime punishable by hanging. The army was sent in to break up and hunt down the Luddites.
The Luddite rebellion lasted from 1811 to 1816, and today (as Randall puts it), it has become “a cautionary moral tale”. The story is told to discourage workers from resisting the march of capitalist progress, lest they too end up like the Luddites.
The Luddites are to unionization as MLK is to black empowerment. The establishment seeks to pacify by mockery and oversimplification of their tales. I have no doubts MLK would have many issues...
The Luddites are to unionization as MLK is to black empowerment.
The establishment seeks to pacify by mockery and oversimplification of their tales.
I have no doubts MLK would have many issues with the way peaceful resistance is taught and practiced today.
Thank you for sharing that article and the Tildes discussion! I hadn't explored the origins of luddism, being only familiar with it in terms of the meaning of the word and its anti-tech...
Thank you for sharing that article and the Tildes discussion! I hadn't explored the origins of luddism, being only familiar with it in terms of the meaning of the word and its anti-tech association. The article lays out some of the thoughts I've had myself and I found the part about a targeted resistance to tech that was harming the working class particularly fascinating. I don't believe isolating yourself from technological progress is the right answer but I certainly don't agree with the direction of progress that's doing more harm than good. There's certainly a need to be mindful about the impact of the tech we're using but I'm afraid the people who want to have these discussions are few in number.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with it, especially if there is an option for pay-for-no-ads. I happily pay the $12/month for youtube premium - it may well be my most "worth"...
Shame to see privacy options getting more limited and big tech forcing people to move to their platform without add blockers, pay for no ads, or simply move to a new service and miss out on the massive libraries big tech has to offer.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with it, especially if there is an option for pay-for-no-ads. I happily pay the $12/month for youtube premium - it may well be my most "worth" subscription. I'm fine with it being a subscription - youtube is an amazing service, when you step back - the fact that you can upload 8k video and have an unlimited amount of people watch it is really quite insane.
Youtube isn't obligated to provide me that service. They have the options of watching with ads, or paying to not have ads, and that's fine with me.
It's going to happen more because interest rates are high and may continue to go up. Not only does it make the short-term borrowing all companies do to maintain liquidity more expensive, but when there's safe money to made in bonds and loans, there's less incentive to go for the equity when it's much riskier.
I don’t think it is an unpopular opinion. I am slowly coming around to seeing the “premium” model of having to pay for a product if you would like it ad free. Youtube is a prime example. One of...
I don’t think it is an unpopular opinion. I am slowly coming around to seeing the “premium” model of having to pay for a product if you would like it ad free. Youtube is a prime example. One of the largest databases of content our civilization has to offer.
I think many of us who grew up with the development and explosion of the internet were spoiled with simply turning on a ad-blocker and going about our business with a product free of charge. At the end of the day though, the boards want to see increased profits. Advertising is not really cutting it that much anymore with the market becoming saturated and people valuing their time over watching ads all day.
I tend to put my value at $1 for 1 hour of content. If I utilize something like Youtube for more than 12 hours a month, then buying Youtube premium should (in my personal opinion here) be “worth” the premium fee. I feel sad about it through because I know in the long term it will cut into the donations and support I show my favorite creators on Patreon/Kofi/etc. and allocate some of my budget back into big tech. Thank you for sharing and elaborating on how interest rates are a significant influence on this model becoming more popular.
It's $20 (USD) for a family plan of up to 5 people. One critical thing is that monetized channels recieve much more money from Google for paid subscriber views than ad viewers. Me paying for...
It's $20 (USD) for a family plan of up to 5 people.
One critical thing is that monetized channels recieve much more money from Google for paid subscriber views than ad viewers. Me paying for Youtube means creators I watch get more money too.
It also includes access to Youtube Music, which is a great Spotify alternative. Thiugh still worse than the old Google Play Music.
It has one killer feature Spotify doesn't: When I start a radio from a song, it plays that song first before the rest of the generated songs. This seems such a minor thing, but if I want to start a playlist from Bohemian Rhapsody, I want that song first.
It's mainly ad-free viewing. You also get youtube music thrown in there, and some features unlocked on the mobile apps (I do use background listening a good bit). In the end, I look at the scale -...
It's mainly ad-free viewing. You also get youtube music thrown in there, and some features unlocked on the mobile apps (I do use background listening a good bit).
In the end, I look at the scale - how much am I getting, and how much am I paying? I watch a fair bit of youtube, so that's a lot of ads I'm not watching. In comparison, I'm not currently subscribed to Netflix because I'm not actively watching or interesting in their content (which is fine - it's not a particular failing of Netflix, you can't possibly please everyone at all times). I think I'm getting way more than $12 of value out of Youtube Premium. So I make the purchase.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me how much Youtube costs to run - that's Google's problem. It can be fun to think about, but in the end, it's not going to factor into purchasing decision. I look at how much I'm getting, and how much I'm spending in my transaction.
I'm not a big fan of the "greedy" discussion that permeates Reddit but I'll leave that for another day.
Paying for YouTube Premium is a perfectly valid option for many people, I definitely wouldn't say that it's really an unpopular opinion. If people simply seek an ad-free experience (with other...
Paying for YouTube Premium is a perfectly valid option for many people, I definitely wouldn't say that it's really an unpopular opinion. If people simply seek an ad-free experience (with other features), and are willing to pay for it, they'll probably end up doing that. There's also the crowd that like ad-free content without wanting to pay, which I can see the appeal in.
Unfortunately, what premium isn't able to offer you is the additional privacy that an alternate front-end can offer. By scraping the content and displaying it on a frontend that is without trackers, and with all traffic proxied through the server that hosts it, it prevents a large majority, if not all of the tracking that Google can do on their site. For some people, they care more about that than anything else.
Lastly, the premium experience is something to consider as well. It's an unfortunate fact that in numerous instances, the offerings of premium come up short when compared to the more...illegitimate options. Personally, if I'm going to pay $12/month for a product (and I'm not doing it to donate/support a product I enjoy), I'd expect that it is extremely close to, on par, or superior to the alternate free options. One such example that I heard in a YouTube video recently covering the Invidious situation involves the offline viewing functionality that YouTube Premium provides. The offline download through premium expires, and rather quickly at that. If you aren't able to or forget to connect to the internet for a few days, you lose access. When compared to downloading it, using a service like youtube-dl, where you'll have permanent access, it's not nearly as appealing.
In the end, it really is just up to what personal priorities and preferences people have.
Edits
Minor repetition
downloading it permanently, [...], where you'll have permanent access
I am really naive when it comes to these things. Can someone explain in a simpler way how a cease and desist can be served to an open source program, do they have the right to it, and what...
I am really naive when it comes to these things. Can someone explain in a simpler way how a cease and desist can be served to an open source program, do they have the right to it, and what prevents others from forking the source code if it's open source?
They're putting pressure on GitHub to take it down, which would significantly reduce its exposure to the general public. Now it remains to be seen if GitHub will cave or not, considering that what...
They're putting pressure on GitHub to take it down, which would significantly reduce its exposure to the general public.
Now it remains to be seen if GitHub will cave or not, considering that what Invidious does is simply scrape the YouTube website without the official API, so technically the Invidious devs don't have to follow the API TOS.
Is that like, what nintendo did for the emulator? But if hosting and exposure is a problem cant they upload it to a service thats also very hard to take down, like using torrent or p2p protocol...
Is that like, what nintendo did for the emulator? But if hosting and exposure is a problem cant they upload it to a service thats also very hard to take down, like using torrent or p2p protocol for distribution. And then just post the magnetlink for updated versions here or on lemmy or mastodon.
Not quite, Nintendo's angle on Dolphin is that Dolphin contains keys and code to decrypt Wii games that Nintendo says is illegally circumventing their copy protection measures. This is Google...
Not quite, Nintendo's angle on Dolphin is that Dolphin contains keys and code to decrypt Wii games that Nintendo says is illegally circumventing their copy protection measures. This is Google saying "Hey, you aren't following our developer API terms" citing terms that the Invidious devs never agreed to, as they're not using YouTube's developer API. I can't find where myself, but I've heard it's been ruled that the open internet is free to scrape, and that's all Invidious is doing.
Distribution is only half of the difficulty, it's also having a git setup simple enough for new developers to join and to contribute. Without them, the project will stop evolving and since it...
Distribution is only half of the difficulty, it's also having a git setup simple enough for new developers to join and to contribute. Without them, the project will stop evolving and since it needs to be continually updated to keep Invidious in a working state, otherwise it will die.
That's too bad, so If Github (Microsoft) complies with a takedown, which I think they'll likely do. then we need to have a more open Github alternative that can stave off unfair takedowns in the...
That's too bad, so If Github (Microsoft) complies with a takedown, which I think they'll likely do. then we need to have a more open Github alternative that can stave off unfair takedowns in the future. (It's likely already existing but as of now i am not aware of any)
Github has a decent track record in this specific type of scenario iirc. That said, Gitlab is the most well-known alternative to Github. Not sure if they've had to deal with takedown requests or...
Github has a decent track record in this specific type of scenario iirc. That said, Gitlab is the most well-known alternative to Github. Not sure if they've had to deal with takedown requests or how that's gone for them if they have though.
As per my non-expert read of the situation, I see that for open source projects and any other non-corporate projects, the weak link is the hoster of those items. Is there a way to solve this, and...
As per my non-expert read of the situation, I see that for open source projects and any other non-corporate projects, the weak link is the hoster of those items. Is there a way to solve this, and am I even right in my assumption?
My understanding is that in order to avoid being personally liable, when served a DMCA takedown most hosts are obligated to take it down. When the RIAA filed a DMCA takedown against the youtube-dl...
My understanding is that in order to avoid being personally liable, when served a DMCA takedown most hosts are obligated to take it down. When the RIAA filed a DMCA takedown against the youtube-dl project, they initially took it down, but later reinstated it after they disputed the grounds of the takedown. Big companies like Microsoft are often better when it comes to handling false DMCA claims because they don't have to worry about getting sued out of existence by a party with more money.
I'm not sure Google is even supposed to DMCA something for violating their TOS (which apparently is their claim?) so I'm not sure if they'll even do that here. But it's also not out of the question that even if they do, Github says they won't take it down because the legal grounds in the DMCA are wrong, just as happened with youtube-dl eventually.
You can send a cease and desist to anyone. It's just a threat that if you don't stop they'll take legal action, it doesn't mean they will win. Anyone that has contributed to the project is...
You can send a cease and desist to anyone. It's just a threat that if you don't stop they'll take legal action, it doesn't mean they will win. Anyone that has contributed to the project is potentially liable but likely just the active maintainers. Nothing prevents anyone from forking the project, but it does expose them to any liabilities from the original project.
Thanks for your answer, so it's like using the law to intimidate the persons involved, it doesnt even have to be winnable, just make it so that the individuals will exhaust their resources...
Thanks for your answer, so it's like using the law to intimidate the persons involved, it doesnt even have to be winnable, just make it so that the individuals will exhaust their resources defending themselves from an empty case.
Yea it's not to hard to see how when one side has billions and the other does not that fighting with lawsuits is not a fair fight. Even the best laws are only as good as the ability to enforce...
Yea it's not to hard to see how when one side has billions and the other does not that fighting with lawsuits is not a fair fight.
Even the best laws are only as good as the ability to enforce them quickly.
Well a C&D letter is more intimidating someone to stop doing something before either side starts expending resources. It has no enforceable legal weight behind it. The next step would be seeking...
Well a C&D letter is more intimidating someone to stop doing something before either side starts expending resources. It has no enforceable legal weight behind it. The next step would be seeking an injunction from the courts which is legally enforceable.
edit: Should clarify, this next step in legal escalation, but they can send C&D letters to github as well and they might just shut down the repos/forks without any pushback.
It won't shut down. It's open source and scrapes rather than using an API. Attempts to shut down similar projects in the past have gone incredibly poorly (for YouTube).
It won't shut down. It's open source and scrapes rather than using an API. Attempts to shut down similar projects in the past have gone incredibly poorly (for YouTube).
I started backwards. I installed a front end that somebody made for roku, but it looks like there's some bugs with invidious causing some issues at the moment. I'm still going to fool around for a...
I started backwards. I installed a front end that somebody made for roku, but it looks like there's some bugs with invidious causing some issues at the moment. I'm still going to fool around for a bit though because I'd really like to get YouTube on the television with all the crap.
The repo is here: https://github.com/iBicha/playlet You can side load or download the publish app: Playlet on Roku channel store I got distracted and haven't had time to get the thing to work. I...
I got distracted and haven't had time to get the thing to work. I think a current bug is with invidious itself was causing the issue. My plan was to point to a public invidous instance first. If that wasnt working out, I would then run the instance myself for my fam.
Agreed. I have been worried a crackdown around many privacy projects was going to happen soon with the recent purge of accounts used to have anonymous login and use of the google store. Big tech...
Agreed. I have been worried a crackdown around many privacy projects was going to happen soon with the recent purge of accounts used to have anonymous login and use of the google store. Big tech is coming to collect their debts, and their payment is information and encouraging you to get back in line with using their services.
Is this program for android? Or Gnu/Linux? Ive just been using the YouTube app on android, even though I have newpipe installed, I like the original app better than newpipe, but I'd try this one...
Is this program for android? Or Gnu/Linux? Ive just been using the YouTube app on android, even though I have newpipe installed, I like the original app better than newpipe, but I'd try this one if its for android before github drops it
It is a web app, so it would generally be hosted on a Linux server (home server or VPS, for instance), though you could host it on your own machine and use it that way.
It is a web app, so it would generally be hosted on a Linux server (home server or VPS, for instance), though you could host it on your own machine and use it that way.
I believe Invidious is only a progress web app / web front end kind of like Tildes. There is not an app for the service, but you can reach the site via any browser on any operating system. It can...
I believe Invidious is only a progress web app / web front end kind of like Tildes. There is not an app for the service, but you can reach the site via any browser on any operating system. It can be a bit clunky on mobile devices, but I have used it occasionally without issue.
The specific contents of the Cease & Desist letter YouTube sent intrigues me. A large portion of it accuses Invidious of violating YouTube's "API Services Terms of Service" - which, they aren't...
The specific contents of the Cease & Desist letter YouTube sent intrigues me.
A large portion of it accuses Invidious of violating YouTube's "API Services Terms of Service" - which, they aren't using, it's scraped. As a result, the entire first two points of the email don't apply here. I can see where they're coming from on the last one, Invidious scrapes content without prior approval. It feels like they just filled out and sent a template C&D notice...
Regardless, I'm glad the team at Invidious chose to stand up and keep the project going despite the C&D (for however long it's possible). Too many good tools have been lost to Google, YouTube Vanced being a prime example.
It appears the Streisand effect is taking place as well, it appears more people have started to host their own copy of Invidious or started using it. Personally, I was aware of Invidious for a while and considered hosting an instance for personal use, but never ended up doing it until I heard the news about the C&D. Having used it for a couple of days now, it is quite an enjoyable experience.
It would appear many of the big tech companies are consolidating and really cracking down on third party apps, APIs, and any alternative services of their products. Shame to see privacy options getting more limited and big tech forcing people to move to their platform without add blockers, pay for no ads, or simply move to a new service and miss out on the massive libraries big tech has to offer.
There will always be a resistance, even if it shrinks or becomes less accessible. Some of us are just inexorably driven to maintain control of our own computers, and we'll continue to find ways to do it.
I think it's incredible that all tracking and data gathering that's done to us, all the spying and monitoring, is for advertising. Advertising to get us to buy things we don't want or need, getting us to look at little boxes so we want the thing. I don't know the word to describe this experience but it's like realising your long-standing paranoia was because the Peeping Tom you've been avoiding only wanted you to buy a new shed/car/dress/PPI/wallpaper. Once I realised that I found it much easier to ignore adverts pushed into my face.
There's advertising, which I find easy enough to ignore if I do encounter it somehow, but all the tracking also goes into trying to figure out how to make their apps/sites more addictive so they can have more engagement. That's technically still done so they can advertise more but it's the manipulation and stealing of attention that I can't stand.
Sneaky ways yes, kind of impressive the lengths they'll go to to get your eyeballs looking at something.
Now I see it, it sort of doesn't affect me as much. Like that bit in the film The Labyrinth "you have no power over me".
Agreed. A lightbulb moment comes to fruition over time when researching and getting into the privacy enthusiast movement. Many strike a balance between privacy and convenience. Some sacrifice time for privacy. I despise having to sit through video advertisements before getting to the content I wish to see. I grew up with enough advertisement on cable television to last me a lifetime. Rather not spend more time watching advertisements on Youtube, Hulu, etc. about products I really don’t care about. Thank you for sharing and calling out the “paranoia” which tends to plague us at one point or another.
Harvesting and selling data to third parties after paying the premium fee is a dirtbag move. Unfortunately, Google has always had this business model and is addicted to it like crack. I can’t ever see the board allowing for Google to move away from a ad-centric, data harvesting, thir party sellout model to something more akin to a Apple (who as far as I know, scrapes data, but hordes it to themselves). I still hold out hope they will figure it out and I still refuse to make a Google account out of principle. Time will tell what happens as the universe unfolds itself in this new era of the internet.
Does it? In fact, does Google sell customer data at all? I was under the impression that it did not. I thought Google uses data directly to target their own ads through Adsense. Since they have their own ad platform, they can utilize the data directly without giving the data to third parties.
Yeah, this is one of the mythos about tech companies that just isn't true. You even heard Congresspeople peddling it. Customer data is Google's lifeblood - it's what makes using their ad platform so attractive. Why on earth would they sell it? And lose their competitive advantage?
Okay, but if you pay to remove ads they aren’t “selling” your data. That’s the point of removing ads.
But if you don’t see any ads, what ad space are they selling?
That’s like saying people who buy, for example, corn futures are buying actual corn. Yes, technically they are. But you would be ignoring the fact that those futures are always sold before the future comes to term. So in reality they are not buying corn. If you ignore the context around the financial transaction, you can say it means whatever you want.
If Google never shows you an ad, they do not make money off the data. So you can’t claim they sell your data if they never exchange your data for money.
I honestly don't mind my data being used for marketing, it's how the data is handled and stored. I basically have no control over it, so I give as little as possible; even going so far as to just not engaging at all.
The more big tech grows, the more I'm finding the appeal of giving it all up and becoming a luddite.
"The contemporary usage of Luddite has the machine-smashing part correct — but that’s about all it gets right"
https://theconversation.com/im-a-luddite-you-should-be-one-too-163172
You may enjoy reading that. I suspect we're standing in a crowd of Luddites who don't yet realize that they are one.
ETA: Someone posted it to Tildes before: https://tildes.net/~tech/1495/im_a_luddite_you_should_be_one_too
The Luddites are to unionization as MLK is to black empowerment.
The establishment seeks to pacify by mockery and oversimplification of their tales.
I have no doubts MLK would have many issues with the way peaceful resistance is taught and practiced today.
Thank you for sharing that article and the Tildes discussion! I hadn't explored the origins of luddism, being only familiar with it in terms of the meaning of the word and its anti-tech association. The article lays out some of the thoughts I've had myself and I found the part about a targeted resistance to tech that was harming the working class particularly fascinating. I don't believe isolating yourself from technological progress is the right answer but I certainly don't agree with the direction of progress that's doing more harm than good. There's certainly a need to be mindful about the impact of the tech we're using but I'm afraid the people who want to have these discussions are few in number.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm fine with it, especially if there is an option for pay-for-no-ads. I happily pay the $12/month for youtube premium - it may well be my most "worth" subscription. I'm fine with it being a subscription - youtube is an amazing service, when you step back - the fact that you can upload 8k video and have an unlimited amount of people watch it is really quite insane.
Youtube isn't obligated to provide me that service. They have the options of watching with ads, or paying to not have ads, and that's fine with me.
It's going to happen more because interest rates are high and may continue to go up. Not only does it make the short-term borrowing all companies do to maintain liquidity more expensive, but when there's safe money to made in bonds and loans, there's less incentive to go for the equity when it's much riskier.
I don’t think it is an unpopular opinion. I am slowly coming around to seeing the “premium” model of having to pay for a product if you would like it ad free. Youtube is a prime example. One of the largest databases of content our civilization has to offer.
I think many of us who grew up with the development and explosion of the internet were spoiled with simply turning on a ad-blocker and going about our business with a product free of charge. At the end of the day though, the boards want to see increased profits. Advertising is not really cutting it that much anymore with the market becoming saturated and people valuing their time over watching ads all day.
I tend to put my value at $1 for 1 hour of content. If I utilize something like Youtube for more than 12 hours a month, then buying Youtube premium should (in my personal opinion here) be “worth” the premium fee. I feel sad about it through because I know in the long term it will cut into the donations and support I show my favorite creators on Patreon/Kofi/etc. and allocate some of my budget back into big tech. Thank you for sharing and elaborating on how interest rates are a significant influence on this model becoming more popular.
It's $20 (USD) for a family plan of up to 5 people.
One critical thing is that monetized channels recieve much more money from Google for paid subscriber views than ad viewers. Me paying for Youtube means creators I watch get more money too.
It also includes access to Youtube Music, which is a great Spotify alternative. Thiugh still worse than the old Google Play Music.
It has one killer feature Spotify doesn't: When I start a radio from a song, it plays that song first before the rest of the generated songs. This seems such a minor thing, but if I want to start a playlist from Bohemian Rhapsody, I want that song first.
It's mainly ad-free viewing. You also get youtube music thrown in there, and some features unlocked on the mobile apps (I do use background listening a good bit).
In the end, I look at the scale - how much am I getting, and how much am I paying? I watch a fair bit of youtube, so that's a lot of ads I'm not watching. In comparison, I'm not currently subscribed to Netflix because I'm not actively watching or interesting in their content (which is fine - it's not a particular failing of Netflix, you can't possibly please everyone at all times). I think I'm getting way more than $12 of value out of Youtube Premium. So I make the purchase.
In the end, it doesn't matter to me how much Youtube costs to run - that's Google's problem. It can be fun to think about, but in the end, it's not going to factor into purchasing decision. I look at how much I'm getting, and how much I'm spending in my transaction.
I'm not a big fan of the "greedy" discussion that permeates Reddit but I'll leave that for another day.
Paying for YouTube Premium is a perfectly valid option for many people, I definitely wouldn't say that it's really an unpopular opinion. If people simply seek an ad-free experience (with other features), and are willing to pay for it, they'll probably end up doing that. There's also the crowd that like ad-free content without wanting to pay, which I can see the appeal in.
Unfortunately, what premium isn't able to offer you is the additional privacy that an alternate front-end can offer. By scraping the content and displaying it on a frontend that is without trackers, and with all traffic proxied through the server that hosts it, it prevents a large majority, if not all of the tracking that Google can do on their site. For some people, they care more about that than anything else.
Lastly, the premium experience is something to consider as well. It's an unfortunate fact that in numerous instances, the offerings of premium come up short when compared to the more...illegitimate options. Personally, if I'm going to pay $12/month for a product (and I'm not doing it to donate/support a product I enjoy), I'd expect that it is extremely close to, on par, or superior to the alternate free options. One such example that I heard in a YouTube video recently covering the Invidious situation involves the offline viewing functionality that YouTube Premium provides. The offline download through premium expires, and rather quickly at that. If you aren't able to or forget to connect to the internet for a few days, you lose access. When compared to downloading it, using a service like youtube-dl, where you'll have permanent access, it's not nearly as appealing.
In the end, it really is just up to what personal priorities and preferences people have.
Edits
downloading it permanently, [...], where you'll have permanent accessIronically them doing this lead me to finding out about it and makes me want to host an instance of it!
Right? If "the man" doesn't want me to, it must benefit me in some way.
I am really naive when it comes to these things. Can someone explain in a simpler way how a cease and desist can be served to an open source program, do they have the right to it, and what prevents others from forking the source code if it's open source?
They're putting pressure on GitHub to take it down, which would significantly reduce its exposure to the general public.
Now it remains to be seen if GitHub will cave or not, considering that what Invidious does is simply scrape the YouTube website without the official API, so technically the Invidious devs don't have to follow the API TOS.
Is that like, what nintendo did for the emulator? But if hosting and exposure is a problem cant they upload it to a service thats also very hard to take down, like using torrent or p2p protocol for distribution. And then just post the magnetlink for updated versions here or on lemmy or mastodon.
Not quite, Nintendo's angle on Dolphin is that Dolphin contains keys and code to decrypt Wii games that Nintendo says is illegally circumventing their copy protection measures. This is Google saying "Hey, you aren't following our developer API terms" citing terms that the Invidious devs never agreed to, as they're not using YouTube's developer API. I can't find where myself, but I've heard it's been ruled that the open internet is free to scrape, and that's all Invidious is doing.
Distribution is only half of the difficulty, it's also having a git setup simple enough for new developers to join and to contribute. Without them, the project will stop evolving and since it needs to be continually updated to keep Invidious in a working state, otherwise it will die.
That's too bad, so If Github (Microsoft) complies with a takedown, which I think they'll likely do. then we need to have a more open Github alternative that can stave off unfair takedowns in the future. (It's likely already existing but as of now i am not aware of any)
Github has a decent track record in this specific type of scenario iirc. That said, Gitlab is the most well-known alternative to Github. Not sure if they've had to deal with takedown requests or how that's gone for them if they have though.
As per my non-expert read of the situation, I see that for open source projects and any other non-corporate projects, the weak link is the hoster of those items. Is there a way to solve this, and am I even right in my assumption?
My understanding is that in order to avoid being personally liable, when served a DMCA takedown most hosts are obligated to take it down. When the RIAA filed a DMCA takedown against the youtube-dl project, they initially took it down, but later reinstated it after they disputed the grounds of the takedown. Big companies like Microsoft are often better when it comes to handling false DMCA claims because they don't have to worry about getting sued out of existence by a party with more money.
I'm not sure Google is even supposed to DMCA something for violating their TOS (which apparently is their claim?) so I'm not sure if they'll even do that here. But it's also not out of the question that even if they do, Github says they won't take it down because the legal grounds in the DMCA are wrong, just as happened with youtube-dl eventually.
Well I do hope that it doesn't get taken down. Even though I don't use that software, I am still supportive of their ideals.
You can send a cease and desist to anyone. It's just a threat that if you don't stop they'll take legal action, it doesn't mean they will win. Anyone that has contributed to the project is potentially liable but likely just the active maintainers. Nothing prevents anyone from forking the project, but it does expose them to any liabilities from the original project.
Thanks for your answer, so it's like using the law to intimidate the persons involved, it doesnt even have to be winnable, just make it so that the individuals will exhaust their resources defending themselves from an empty case.
See SLAPP suits. Some anti-SLAPP laws exist, but it still seems to be a bit of a broken system.
Yea it's not to hard to see how when one side has billions and the other does not that fighting with lawsuits is not a fair fight.
Even the best laws are only as good as the ability to enforce them quickly.
Well a C&D letter is more intimidating someone to stop doing something before either side starts expending resources. It has no enforceable legal weight behind it. The next step would be seeking an injunction from the courts which is legally enforceable.
edit: Should clarify, this next step in legal escalation, but they can send C&D letters to github as well and they might just shut down the repos/forks without any pushback.
damn, big corps acting like street thugs. and the law(yers) is their weapon/accomplice
TIL about Invidious. Dang it!
It won't shut down. It's open source and scrapes rather than using an API. Attempts to shut down similar projects in the past have gone incredibly poorly (for YouTube).
Ooh. In that case, time to look up what it requires...
I tried to set it up, and I've found it lackluster and quite ugly. If anyone has tips I'd certainly appreciate.
I started backwards. I installed a front end that somebody made for roku, but it looks like there's some bugs with invidious causing some issues at the moment. I'm still going to fool around for a bit though because I'd really like to get YouTube on the television with all the crap.
Do tell? I've been on Premium YouTube for a minute for a family plan, but options are always appreciated.
The repo is here: https://github.com/iBicha/playlet
You can side load or download the publish app: Playlet on Roku channel store
I got distracted and haven't had time to get the thing to work. I think a current bug is with invidious itself was causing the issue. My plan was to point to a public invidous instance first. If that wasnt working out, I would then run the instance myself for my fam.
Benchmark: Playlet vs Youtube on Roku TV: playing "Smooth Criminal" by "Michael Jackson"
Anyway, good luck!
I am really afraid they would do the same with SmartTubeNext, how much is needed a good YouTube alternative.
Agreed. I have been worried a crackdown around many privacy projects was going to happen soon with the recent purge of accounts used to have anonymous login and use of the google store. Big tech is coming to collect their debts, and their payment is information and encouraging you to get back in line with using their services.
Is this program for android? Or Gnu/Linux? Ive just been using the YouTube app on android, even though I have newpipe installed, I like the original app better than newpipe, but I'd try this one if its for android before github drops it
It is a web app, so it would generally be hosted on a Linux server (home server or VPS, for instance), though you could host it on your own machine and use it that way.
I believe Invidious is only a progress web app / web front end kind of like Tildes. There is not an app for the service, but you can reach the site via any browser on any operating system. It can be a bit clunky on mobile devices, but I have used it occasionally without issue.
To add to the other reply, it's responsive layout (means good experience on mobile web browsers).
The specific contents of the Cease & Desist letter YouTube sent intrigues me.
A large portion of it accuses Invidious of violating YouTube's "API Services Terms of Service" - which, they aren't using, it's scraped. As a result, the entire first two points of the email don't apply here. I can see where they're coming from on the last one, Invidious scrapes content without prior approval. It feels like they just filled out and sent a template C&D notice...
Regardless, I'm glad the team at Invidious chose to stand up and keep the project going despite the C&D (for however long it's possible). Too many good tools have been lost to Google, YouTube Vanced being a prime example.
It appears the Streisand effect is taking place as well, it appears more people have started to host their own copy of Invidious or started using it. Personally, I was aware of Invidious for a while and considered hosting an instance for personal use, but never ended up doing it until I heard the news about the C&D. Having used it for a couple of days now, it is quite an enjoyable experience.