this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2023
59 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

1928 readers
7 users here now

Rumors, happenings, and innovations in the technology sphere. If it's technological news, it probably belongs here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That makes Invidious' readme (which claims no YouTube APIs at all) disingenuous at the very least.

The InnerTube isn't the YouTube API, far from it. So it's still valid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Valid" and "disingenuous" mean very different things. How would you feel about editing that README point to be explicit that you use an ~~unofficial~~ undocumented YouTube API?

For the record, I don't think "InnerTube" would be considered unofficial, legally. It's authorized by YouTube, since they made and use it internally. That's the definition of "official." This is a small part of why I think the wording in the TOS makes the TOS apply to "InnerTube." What makes you think that it doesn't?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

What makes you think that it doesn't?

The fact that it isn't "the YouTube API". The policy only applies to the API you can get "officially".