• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Right, but the point is that this is about de-Googling, and the video wast posted to a Google-owned site by someone who makes their livelihood from Google.

              Piped and similar services are cool, it’s just a weird conflict of interest.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Is it though? How likely is someone who watches that video to actually degoogle? He uses windows almost exclusively (Microsoft tracks you), shows benchmarks from games with DRM, recommends products that track you (e.g. Meta headsets), etc.

                  I’m not saying it’s bad that he’s doing it, I’m just saying it’s ineffective. How many of these products does he actually use? Why should I trust his recommendations if he’s not actually living a degoogled life?

                  I see it as lipservice for views, that’s it. If he was really serious about it, I think he’d make his videos available on other services (and not just floatplane, that’s a money grab).

                  I trust Louis Rossmann far more, because he:

                  • uses the products he recommends
                  • fights for real, legal change related to privacy
                  • makes his videos available on Odyssee

                  That last one is a little self-serving because he’s pushing his app Grayjay, but paying for the app is optional and no features are locked behind paying.

                  So I’m not gong ri applaud LTT for making this video. The intent is to drive clicks and ad revenue. I don’t think that’s bad, I just don’t think it’s worthy of commendation. If you want a better mainstream channel for this, check out Naomi Brockwell. She’s quite pleasant to listen to and covers far more than LTT or Louis Rossmann ever would.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Replace syncing to Google contacts and Google calendar with webDAV and calDAV to next cloud.

    I run next cloud in my garage. DAVx is free from F-Droid app store. Setup is easy. And you don’t need Google accounts to store contacts and calenda in your home cloud

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Half the time piped links won’t work for me and the other half of the time the videos buffer incredibly slow.

    • uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think it’s not a good idea to leave links to Piped instead of YouTube (same for Nitter/Twitter, Libreddit/Reddit, etc.). If you want to avoid YouTube, then just install LibRedirect extension or similar. Piped links are temporary, they’ll break sooner or later, making it difficult for people to get to the website.

      • Kushan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The problem that I see is that all of these alternatives still rely on YouTube at the end of the day.

        And the cost of setting up a new video hosting site that’s free to consume content from is ridiculous.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That’s the service’s problem. VCRs and DVRs had ad-block ages ago, and those were commercial products sold at regular retail stores, so it’s totally a non-issue.

        An ad-blocker just means I’m not running optional extras. The web server says, “please display X, Y, and Z,” and the ad-blocker says, “nah to Y and Z, but I’ll render X.” It’s the same idea as safe-search filters to block websites, but it runs within “trusted” pages instead of just blocking certain domains.

        It’s the same with sponser blockers, but I personally don’t use them and prefer to manually skip them instead unless the creator generally has good recs (e.g. I often watch them once/twice on Gamers Nexus, because they only recommend good products, but block the others).

        Piracy is sharing content that you don’t have the rights to share. Ad-block just blocks content you don’t want to see. Those are not the same thing at all.

        • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Piracy is sharing content that you don’t have the rights to share.

          I’d classify watching something on piracysite.com as piracy.

          I’d also class bypassing Netflix’s login requirements to watch their catalogue as piracy. But I guess that’s more a semantics thing.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sure, because in those cases you’re gaining access to content that you don’t have permission to access.

            Ad-block isn’t that, it’s just blocking content you don’t want. You still have permission to the content.

            • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You don’t have permission to modify any of the content YouTube sends you.

              https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#eb887a967c

              Section: Permissions and Restrictions Point 2

              circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage, or otherwise interfere with the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that: (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content; or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yes, it’s a violation of their TOS, but TOS is often illegal anyway.

                I’m not modifying any of the content they send, I’m merely not rendering it. That’s a very different thing. It’s just like blocking fonts (I do that too), if I don’t want an asset, I won’t download it. If they want to block me because I’m blocking part of their page from loading, that’s on them.

                • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  but TOS is often illegal anyway.

                  Piracy isn’t only a legal thing. It’s just dealt with through the legal system.

                  I’m not modifying any of the content

                  Sorry, I was wrong. You are however circumventing YouTube’s playing ads.

    • slimarev92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Apparently they’re going to address YouTube replacements in the second part of the series. Also I’m fairly sure they spoke about Youtube ReVanced a couple of times before.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I disagree, he is just mad because he wants to keep all the ad money for himself and thinks YouTube is stealing his profit. This is the “ad blocking is piracy” guy afterall. There’s not a single moral shred in that video, it’s all patronizing and capitalist greed. He just wants to keep all the subscription money without having to share it with anyone.

      • cheesepotatoes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        He’s not. There were unsubstantiated accusations from a disgruntled former employee that were proved to be false.

        Some people just hear what they want though.

      • Thomrade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        He’s not, there was accusations against him and his company from a former employee that were recently settled in court in favor of Linus, judged has having committed no wrongdoing.

        • ashok36@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not settled in court. An independent law firm investigates the allegations. No court has touched this and likely never will.