this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37727 readers
707 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
view the rest of the comments
Unlike with Reddit, this was already clearly and obviously against terms of service.
IIRC, you can make an alternative front end to YouTube, but it has to include the video ads. Somewhat ironically, many of those aren't even from YouTube themselves, but especially on videos with music, they're assigned by the RIAA to cover licensing costs.
If Reddit had done what YouTube does and just added a requirement for apps to display the sponsored posts, there would certainly be some mildly annoyed users, but it would not have come to the current level.
That's only if you agree to the developer TOS. Invidious doesn't use the Developer API and as such never agreed to the associated TOS. This is against a terms of service that is not relevant to Invidious.
You have to agree to it in order to view YouTube. If the software doesn't present those terms, it in itself is in violation.
#1 No, this is not in the end user's terms. The Terms presented to end users only speak of advertisement in how they may be served to the user, and in how as a creator, users must abide by the Advertising on Youtube Policies
#2 It's extremely questionable that their TOS is legally enforceable anyways in this instance as it doesn't meet the legal threshold for a browsewrap agreement, i.e. an agreement made legally binding by a user's continued use of a service. Browsewrap agreements require that the language and placement of the website's terms are submitted to the user in the form of some sort of notice or notification. No such thing is required in order to use Youtube. Of course, this goes out the Window once you have an account, as then you've entered a clickwrap agreement with Google's entire ecosystem, but before that, Youtube does not even attempt to enter a browsewrap agreement with users.