Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers

218 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

399

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

194 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

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I understand that and wouldn't have commented if you said that. Instead you said that, quote, ReVanced, end quote, is not open source.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Well the app it creates on your device is not open source. The patch is, but the actual software being run isn't.

Also you can just use actual quotation marks my dude, no need to say "quote end quote" like some kind of Dan Carlin impersonator

[–] 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.