this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
94 points (96.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54539 readers
223 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Switched to piped/invidious. There are even a few good apps like Libretube or Freetube. No need to waste time with scripts and stuff.
I have been loving freetube on desktop. I could never get the websites for piped or invidious to work well
me too but back in october of 23... works so much better than youtube for me even if ads weren't the reason
"No need to waste time with scripts and stuff.", you mean other than learning and knowing what the script does as opposed to hoping the apps' developers are honest, never die, and never sell out.
It's all FOSS. Whoever gets doubts about the devs can check the source or have it checked by experts. They sell out or die? Switch to other frontends or forks. I'd never trust any dev blindly, but if I can choose between these ones and Google... well.
A compiled app is not FOSS unless you compile it yourself, which, shock of shocks, means need to waste time with scripts and stuff. Sorry, but you are making excuses.
I guess then we have to agree to disagree.
Trusting someone for convenience isn't ideal, but not everyone has the time and resources to audit, compile, and host a dumb frontend for yt. Most of the people here is good enough trusting literally anyone except a big tech company, including FOSS devs, the people who check the code, and public instances of their software. Even considering recent drama (solved by the community btw) I'd trust any FOSS project over google any day.
Ok then by your own logic you are only allowed to use Linux From Scratch and you also have to compile your browser yourself. You realize that what you are saying doesn't make any sense at all, right?
Again, you assume things and argue against what I never said. My comment was about easy is a trap. Nothing more. Nothing less. Kindly take your posturing and sit upon it.
Sure, a userscript is one way of solving the issue. But native clients with built-in adblock are another, legitimate way of doing the exact same thing. I really don't understand your issue with FOSS YouTube clients like FreeTube, NewPipe and LibreTube.
A: I never suggested anything remotely counter to adblock aps. I simply stated that you must understand you are trusting the dev.
B: Never stated any issue with any of those nor anything else.
C: Quit assuming intent, read what was actually written, and you may learn to understand what is being said.
You don't like a compiled app differently from source code due to it not being FOSS. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you would prefer the compilation process to be more easily verifiable for you.
I expect this discussion is regarding apps like LibreTube, the license of which is "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later" and is available free of charge.
The GNU General Public License grants the right to use, modify, and distribute the software, modified or not, to everyone free of charge:
The GNU General Public License can be applied to programs:
An app (that is compiled) is a program:
Therefore, a compiled app with the GNU General Public License applied is FOSS.
I stated no such thing and a compiled app can only be assumed FOSS, unless you inspected the code prior to compile, there is no way to know for certain what is in it, only what it does.
Do you like a compiled app differently from source code used to generate it? Your previous reply made it seem that is true.
Am I incorrect in thinking that a compiled app can be assumed FOSS when the text "License: GNU General Public License v3.0 or later" is on the page I use to install it, along with a link to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0-standalone.html
My likes and dislikes were never discussed in any way. Your entire premise is disingenuous. Assumption does not make something so.
I don't think you answered my questions.
I started discussing your likes and dislikes, as an Internet forum is for conversation. How you choose to engage in that conversation is your choice, but it doesn't mean a conversation isn't happening.
The reason replied to you is that I wanted to rebut statements that I consider to be incorrect, and to save other people from taking time to do that and from seeing your comment go unanswered. I don't really care about your replies other than to accomplish those goals. You may perceive that as being disingenuous (though I suspect your behavior is more related to the fact I have disagreements with you, or some preexisting inclination), but I don't really care about that.
Assumptions do change people's behavior, probably in many significant ways every day: "it doesn't have to be fact to cause people to act". Perhaps you should spend more time expressing your opinions in a compelling way so that people have more knowledge, and therefore don't need to hold as many assumptions.
the thread is about as blockers. The post I commented to was about learning scripts or trusting a compiled App. My comment was "easy is a trap". So, no, none of you premise is remotely relevant. My opinion, that you are trusting and not safe when using a compiled app. was the only point I made, the only point I tried to make, and at no point did I make any effort whatsoever to change people's habits. So, kindly keep your assumptions and insistence upon people playing your idiotic game to yourself.
If you're not trying to change other people's behavior, what are you doing?
Finding sources you can trust is helpful. For example, I trust the ArchWiki and POSIX.1-2017, and I follow instructions I find there, which helps me accomplish things without having to spend time thinking about the rationale of those instructions (since the instructions have probably been independently reviewed many times, and if there was something wrong with them I'd probably have heard about that). It would probably also be helpful to be able to trust instructions at https://libretube.dev/ for similar reasons.
I don't think keeping my thoughts to myself is a good idea, since I don't want other people to disrupt my life (unintentionally or intentionally), and giving notice about how I want to spend my life is helpful.
I do think my comments are helpful (and that helpfulness is relevant). If I didn't think that I wouldn't be commenting.
I am informing that others may make educated decisions and not assume security where none is present. Kindly limit yourself and not others.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
it doesn't have to be fact to cause people to act
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Not everyone has the time, energy, or even the knowledge needed to understand what the scripts do. I think most internet users don't even know what is a function and how it looks like, and they don't want to change after getting home from the 8 or more hour work and still needing to do house chores, bills and whatever.
None of which is relevant to the comment I made. But I contend that the only thing needed to understand scripts and the functions contained is a web browser and the ability to read. I was pointing out that the advice to let someone else do it for you isn't actually safe.