deleted by creator
deleted by creator
No they didn’t. Not bothering to implement it because you don’t believe it’s important? Fine. Throwing away the work someone else has done for you? Pathetic.
deleted by creator
Sure, it’s up to them at the end of the day, but I can still explain why I think it’s a terrible decision
deleted by creator
Because it means there will be a fork, which will divide the development of the app in two and waste developers’ time.
You’re right on point. Don’t watch YouTube. Problem Solved
deleted by creator
Not immoral, but just… Not supporting monetarily anyone. No ads on videos, skipping promos, no YT Premium. Simply not helping anyone’s pockets
They can have their beliefs, but once it’s available I’ll be switching straight over to the sponsorblock-enabled version thank you very much
keep in mind, that fork author is investigating how to enable google login, pushed with requests from ex Vanced users… See my comment about it below:
People already made a fork, search Newpipe Sponsorblock
Unfortunate. I really wish that content creators would create pages on Patreon or Liberapay and just see how many people would financially support their content. If the Patreon model works in keeping political commentary and tech-focussed channels up, I don’t see how it would be any different for channels making other kinds of content.
My opinion on Sponsorblock is mixed. I like the idea that content creators have the freedom to choose who they can partner with, but at the same time I really hate having to see companies like Hello Fresh all the time knowing how they treat their workers, or other sponsors like GFuel where it takes a stupid amount of effort to get them to stop sponsoring terrible people.
deleted by creator
I don’t have anything against sponsorship, as long as the relationship is transparent to the viewers and does not impact the content. These people have to pay their bills somehow.
I don’t agree with this position but I also don’t agree with the attacks against them for having this position. It’s not “pathetic” that they don’t implement features you want. The point of free (libre) software is that you don’t have to share the position of the upstream developers, as you can make a fork that has the features you want. That is what has happened with NewPipe.
deleted by creator
FYI: https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe
They’re deciding on the fork name still, to then, have a fdroid repo I’d guess. It already supports notification updates:
https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe/issues/14#issuecomment-748393890
BTW, I just mentioned it as the fork the provided blog URL talks about. I’m concerned with the direction it might take, since several ex Vanced users are pushing for getting to login to youtube, as Vanced did:
https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe/discussions/164#discussioncomment-2577669
And it seems their requests will be heard at some point:
https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe/discussions/164#discussioncomment-2415244 https://github.com/polymorphicshade/NewPipe/discussions/164#discussioncomment-2456960
So, not sponsoring polymorphic newpipe. If only it remained as newpipe with sponsorblock…
I felt I needed to provide additional information about polymorphic newpipe, :)
deleted by creator
A fork to the fork, which sync with the original repo, :) You’re right of course, just wanted to have some fun about it, :)
Worst of all, driving people away from official releases puts them more at risk of downloading malware, and wastes the time of developers. By all means turn it off by default, but refusing to include a feature IS an anti-feature.
Yep, this fully makes sense.
Why not include a perfectly useful feature into an open source app? This just creates unnecessary division. By all means turn it off by default and hide the enable in settings, but don’t just try to throw away someone’s hard work.
deleted by creator
If people don’t want it, it should be possible to disable. It should probably be disabled by default.
Oh jeez that’s a shame. It at least makes me feel better about not being on Android anymore…I missed NewPipe, but if it holds a weak stance like that as a project then I’d rather use something better anyway.
There is no ethical advertising.
As the reply here said: The absolute statement is completely wrong, since hearing of a product from someone else, even a friend, is advertising. Talking positevely about a movie, tv show can be seen as advertising that show. Seeing an ad that is not targeted is also ok. And finally people need to eat and earn money on the internet, either you sell a product (which needs advertising) or you are the person who does that promo or advert. Not everyone can live off Of Patreon or Donations.
And finally people need to eat and earn money on the internet, either you sell a product (which needs advertising) or you are the person who does that promo or advert.
Ignoring the nitpicking of what “advertising” means, no they don’t. The internet doesn’t have to be an avenue for people to make money. You may prefer that to be the case, but it is not an absolute requirement. Personally, I would prefer this ad-driven web collapse entirely so that the only web pages are small sustainable passion projects.
I disagree with the absolute statement there
Advertising that sticks to accurate facts (free of exaggeration and lies), and is displayed only based on what you’re currently looking at (not a profile created from your past behaviour) seems pretty ethical to me
When we read the news, we care not just about accuracy but relevance. It’s no good presenting a bunch of true facts and reporting nothing about the most important issues of our time. In fact, doing so is misinforming people.
Advertising is the same. Just because a company has the most money doesn’t mean their products are deserving of our brain space.
What you’re referring to is a “lie by omission”, which is a form of lying, which I believe I already covered
deleted by creator
Advertising is inherently biased. What you describe, “not made or paid by the seller” is NOT advertising.
Imagine I came to you and say “would you like this sandwich?”. You might take it, if you felt hungry or liked the filling. Now imagine I come up to you and say “I’ll pay you 100 (insert currency) to eat this sandwich”. Suddenly, the sandwich becomes decidedly less appealling…
The sandwich is advertising, and eating it is exposing it to your brain. If it were really beneficial to you, no one would be getting paid.
deleted by creator
Advertising is by definition sponsored. If I tell you I think a product is good, and I’m not getting paid, that’s just called advice.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I read freetube could be installed through flatpak, or similar, on pine64, though I don’t know if freetube adapts well to a phone form factor. A QML/Qt newpipe like front end sounds missing on mobile gnu+linux, :(
deleted by creator
It’s nothing to do with capitalism. Marketing is not an area unique to capitalist economies.
I would be down for donating to content creators on Liberapay. The only thing I’m worried about is the legal status of “free videos”. To my knowledge most creators aren’t licensing their videos with CC etc. What rights do you actually hold over a youtube video for example?
Apparently Youtube allows authors to distribute CC-BY licensed videos on their platform. The lack of Share Alike clause is unfortunate but I suppose it’s better than nothing.
Source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en
Removed by mod
