I do feel there’s got to be nuance of a commercial company doing this to generate profit in the long-run versus end-users doing this just so they can see content more easily.
I can see an argument for an alternative FE, but I’ll never agree that an ad blocker is “wrong.” It’s my choice what to install on my machine, and it’s YouTube’s choice how they choose to deliver their content.
YouTube controls their API (as in, what a third party FE uses), I control what I do with what I receive from the API. They’re different things.
I do agree that ReVanced doesn’t have any “rights” here, but it’s on YouTube to block their requests, it shouldn’t be something they sue over.
All of that being said, I’m actively looking to eliminate YouTube from my life. Nebula, Odysee, and others have enough content that I think I can replace most of my usage of YT. The main thing left is music, but I don’t listen to music all that often anyway.
No, the intent and the consequences of an action are generally taken into consideration in discussions of ethins and in legislation. Additionally, this is not just a matter of ToS. What OpenAI does is create and distribute illegitimate derivative works. They are relying on the argument that what they do is transformative use, which is not really congruent with what “transformative use” has meant historically. We will see in time what the courts have to say about this. But in any case, it will not be judged the same way as a person using a tool just to skip ads. And Revanced is different to both the above because it is a non-commercial service.
I’ll be that guy here and start a small fire.
If it’s not OK for OpenAI to violate YT’s terms of service, then it’s not OK to use an alternative frontend or ad blocker that also violates ToS.
You should be for enforcing the ToS or against it. Allowing one version of breaking it without the other is fickle.
Some people think OpenAI should stop, but they should still have their ReVanced, which boggles my mind a bit.
Rules apply to everyone else. Same people who would lay down their life for Napster and Limewire can’t watch a 5 second ad
I do feel there’s got to be nuance of a commercial company doing this to generate profit in the long-run versus end-users doing this just so they can see content more easily.
The uploaders on YT are paid per ad view. Seeing the content more easily means pretty much demonetizing small creators.
I can see an argument for an alternative FE, but I’ll never agree that an ad blocker is “wrong.” It’s my choice what to install on my machine, and it’s YouTube’s choice how they choose to deliver their content.
YouTube controls their API (as in, what a third party FE uses), I control what I do with what I receive from the API. They’re different things.
I do agree that ReVanced doesn’t have any “rights” here, but it’s on YouTube to block their requests, it shouldn’t be something they sue over.
All of that being said, I’m actively looking to eliminate YouTube from my life. Nebula, Odysee, and others have enough content that I think I can replace most of my usage of YT. The main thing left is music, but I don’t listen to music all that often anyway.
I actually use funkwhale now for music. It’s really decent so far. A little buggy though, but it should iron out
No, the intent and the consequences of an action are generally taken into consideration in discussions of ethins and in legislation. Additionally, this is not just a matter of ToS. What OpenAI does is create and distribute illegitimate derivative works. They are relying on the argument that what they do is transformative use, which is not really congruent with what “transformative use” has meant historically. We will see in time what the courts have to say about this. But in any case, it will not be judged the same way as a person using a tool just to skip ads. And Revanced is different to both the above because it is a non-commercial service.