Already discussed multiple times over the last couple of weeks. I don't think there's any significant new information in this content marketing rerun?<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36262722">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36262722</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36306479">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36306479</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36250582">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36250582</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368811">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368811</a>
>One developer behind Invidious explains in an open letter that Google is wrong and that they will not comply with the request to shut down Invidious. The argumentation: Google appears unaware that Invidious is not using YouTube's official APIs for providing its service. Since Invidious does not use a programming interface from YouTube, it is not bound by the conditions that Google states in their cease-and-desist letter.<p>It's amusing when people try to use a technical argument to explain why the law doesn't apply to them.
Interesting; I haven't heard of Invidious before (which apparently runs on a host as a website, not as an app on a device), but there are many apps which access YouTube without showing ads. And of course, ad-blockers like uBlock Origin will block YouTube ads in the browser.<p>Will Google be going after them next?