Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54627 readers

627 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

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

398

Louis Rossman/FUTO's YouTube app, GrayJay, now supports Sponsorblock... and shames you if you use it (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 year ago by bionicjoey@lemmy.ca to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Seriously this was very surprising. I've been experimenting with GrayJay since it was announced and I largely think it's a pretty sweet app. I know there are concerns over how it isn't "true open source" but it's a hell of a lot more open than ReVanced. Plus, I like the general design and philosophy of the app.

I updated the YouTube backend recently and to my surprise and delight they had added support for SponsorBlock. However, when I went to enable it, it warned me "turning this on harms creators" and made me click a box before I could continue.

Bruh, you're literally an ad-blocking YouTube frontend. What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to be facilitating ad-blocking and then at the same time shame the end-user for using an extension which simply automates seeking ahead in videos. Are you seriously gonna tell me that even without Sponsorblock, if I skip ahead past the sponsored ad read in a video, that I'm "harming the creator"?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that it literally can't be used in an open fashion since it critically requires a proprietary closed base.

Some source code is available but the entire thing is not open source.

[–] ayaya@lemdro.id 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you guys are just discussing semantics. Revanced as a project is the patches themselves, so Revanced is open source. But a YouTube app patched with the Revanced patches is not.

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. Could have just said YouTube is closed source from the start when ReVanced is 100% open-source.

[–] brothershamus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Well I'm glad that's settled then.

[–] kick_out_the_jams@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

That's a better way to frame it.

The patch is 'about as open source as you can get' but the actual application is far from it.