4 ms·

It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not

It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I think you're missing what the argument is. Youtube blocking something that violates Youtube TOS: completely fine One part of a massive conglomerate company blocking something because it violates the TOS of an unrelated part: anti-competitive > I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks. Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. They get apps taken down that don't do anything illegal. So the distinction does matter.
- vatueil 7y ago
  That's not "anti-competitive". What sort of competition is being blocked? No court is going to side with third-party apps that depend on YouTube's servers while violating the terms on which they're allowed to use its streaming services. And what does it matter how the company is organized? YouTube is in fact a direct subsidiary of Google, not just a sibling company under Alphabet, but so what? Would calling it "Google Video" make a difference? The problem with the earlier hypothetical example (of Spotify acquiring Medium and blocking articles about apps that violate Spotify's ToS) was not cooperation between Spotify and Medium, but issues regarding free speech, insofar as that applies to a private platform. The analogous situation with YouTube would be content on Google platforms discussing third-party YouTube apps... and in fact, there are plenty of videos on YouTube itself discussing youtube-dl or apps such as NewPipe. > Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. That's semantics. Call it technical vs. non-technical means, then, or whatever. The problem with that line of ideological reasoning is that it implies YouTube should use technical means, such as locking down its API, rather than just booting offending apps off the company's own app stores. The end result would be worse for users.

Dylan16807 7y ago

> It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I think you're missing what the argument is. Youtube blocking something that violates Youtube TOS: completely fine One part of a massive conglomerate company blocking something because it violates the TOS of an unrelated part: anti-competitive > I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of app stores as well. I like having youtube-dl available, thanks. Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. They get apps taken down that don't do anything illegal. So the distinction does matter.

vatueil 7y ago
That's not "anti-competitive". What sort of competition is being blocked? No court is going to side with third-party apps that depend on YouTube's servers while violating the terms on which they're allowed to use its streaming services. And what does it matter how the company is organized? YouTube is in fact a direct subsidiary of Google, not just a sibling company under Alphabet, but so what? Would calling it "Google Video" make a difference? The problem with the earlier hypothetical example (of Spotify acquiring Medium and blocking articles about apps that violate Spotify's ToS) was not cooperation between Spotify and Medium, but issues regarding free speech, insofar as that applies to a private platform. The analogous situation with YouTube would be content on Google platforms discussing third-party YouTube apps... and in fact, there are plenty of videos on YouTube itself discussing youtube-dl or apps such as NewPipe. > Youtube isn't using legal means, in general. That's semantics. Call it technical vs. non-technical means, then, or whatever. The problem with that line of ideological reasoning is that it implies YouTube should use technical means, such as locking down its API, rather than just booting offending apps off the company's own app stores. The end result would be worse for users.