3 ms·
While I'm sympathetic to people running alternative frontends and I use another such project (nitter) myself, nitpicking on the language is unlikely to help the
by supriyo-biswas 3y ago
While I'm sympathetic to people running alternative frontends and I use another such project (nitter) myself, nitpicking on the language is unlikely to help the author of this blog post, and I think they'd be better off consulting a lawyer on this one.
On Github[1] and invidious.io[2] they say they're the project manager and manage finances, which puts them in a leadership role, and therefore capable of directing the project, including cessation of its operation. Imagine if a CEO started nitpicking about how it's "not their product or service" and it was the company maintaining it, and how they weren't a low level employee and thus not responsible for the activities of the company.
And even if we are to assume that "project manager" is simply an honorary position, there is a level of implied responsibility even in these positions. As an example, CEO positions often inch closer to being honorary, as demonstrated by some CEOs being on the boards of multiple companies.
It is a different question as to whether the cessation of its operation is an effective measure or not, or whether running alternative frontends should be a violation of a law. Imagine a situation where Alice and their friends bully Bob. Bob gets a restraining order against Alice, and Alice argues that their friends like to bully Bob as well, so a restraining order against Alice won't help. "Other people can also do it" isn't a valid legal defense, even when it is true.
It's also interesting that they didn't release the full letter sent by Google. I wonder if it's actually a C&D but the author simply hopes that they can avoid complying with it only because it uses "To Whom It May Concern", which is standard legal verbiage.
[1] https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty
[2] https://invidious.io/team/ https://invidious.io/team/
- metadat 3y ago+1, Yes. Though I'm reluctant to add any fuel to this tire dumpster fire bum fight. This reeks of an odd sort of reverse troll play. Why didn't the letter get a prompt introduction to the shredder? No HN post or other public discourse required. My mother does this to bogus mail literally all the time. Nobody of consequence cares what this person or their strange little business is doing. Pay your taxes, beyond that, shine on and have a glorious life.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- photonerd 3y agoYeah, the whole post has a very “I am 14 & very smart” feel to it. Their only really good point is that they don’t use the API so aren’t bound by its terns. That’s a good, solid, point. The rest is… not.
- BlackLotus89 3y agoWhy is the fact that they don't offer any invidious instance not a good point?
- photonerd 3y agoThey offer the software. If the software itself was in breach of the terms then instances wouldn’t really matter. But it’s not, so that’s moot.
- BlackLotus89 3y agoThey offer the documentation to install the software. The software itself is hosted on github (at least I didn't find a download link). I mean I get what you want to say and of course he sounds smug, but imo he is right at least with invidious.io not offering the client or service
- photonerd 3y agoAlmost every website is hosted on someone else’s server. If that argument held true no company would be offering anything. It’s nonsense.
- bbor 3y agoThey refer to “product OR service”. Sooo pretty sure this comes under “product”
- yrro 3y ago> Their only really good point is that they don’t use the API so aren’t bound by its terns. That’s a good, solid, point. In the UK, accessing a computer without permission is a criminal offence. To do so with the intent to commit further offences (e.g., copyright infringement) is an aggravated offence, punishable by unlimited fine and five years imprisonment. It's a really bad idea to access an API without permission.