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

Technology

37712 readers
276 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

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
[–] TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.org 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.

[–] AbelianGrape@beehaw.org 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?

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".