• TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That makes Invidious’ readme (which claims no YouTube APIs at all) disingenuous at the very least.

    The InnerTube isn’t the YouTube API, far from it. So it’s still valid.

    • AbelianGrape@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Valid” and “disingenuous” mean very different things. How would you feel about editing that README point to be explicit that you use an unofficial undocumented YouTube API?

      For the record, I don’t think “InnerTube” would be considered unofficial, legally. It’s authorized by YouTube, since they made and use it internally. That’s the definition of “official.” This is a small part of why I think the wording in the TOS makes the TOS apply to “InnerTube.” What makes you think that it doesn’t?

      • TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What makes you think that it doesn’t?

        The fact that it isn’t “the YouTube API”. The policy only applies to the API you can get “officially”.