[jsheard]

Cobalt is also completely free, without ads or any other monetization besides donations, it's purely meant to help normal people download videos for normal people purposes. It's not like they're a for-profit data harvesting outfit complaining about getting abused by another for-profit data harvesting outfit.

[Thomashuet]

You're just saying that Cobalt is small and non-profit so they must be good and YouTube and ByteDance are big and rich so they must be evil. But if you only look that what they are actually doing here, it's very similar: bypassing protections to use a service in a way that the service provider doesn't like.

[phoronixrly]

Bytedance and youtube are evil, but not beacause they are big and rich. Cobalt is good, but not because they are small and a non-profit.

[loloquwowndueo]

If bytedance are so big and rich why don’t they implement their own scraping solution instead of abusing a small service like cobalt.

[sangnoir]

...Because someone scraping from a Bytedance IP range is not necessarily Bytedance, just like requests from an AWS IP do not imply Amazon authored the spider

[skeaker]

In isolation, a thief masquerading as a security system technician and an actual technician both do good work by checking on your home security. You can't meaningfully say one is better than the other, because even though one is secretly casing out your home so he can rob it later, in isolation they're doing the same thing.

[snvy]

Cobalt is bypassing protections to allow legitimate Youtube users to download single videos without causing harm and with no monetary incentives. Bytedance is mass downloading thounsands of videos, all for monetary incentives while heavily breaking the TOS and potentially ignoring copyright laws. Similar, but one is doing way more harm than the other.

[whywhywhywhy]

> and with no monetary incentives

Donations are a monetary incentive

> while heavily breaking the TOS and potentially ignoring copyright laws

Cobalt also breaks the TOS and ignores copyright laws, personally I don't think that matters but having a double standard when one company does it "It's ok when they do it" and when one you don't like does it you try to use copyright laws and TOS as a weapon just makes me think it really isn't about TOS or copyright is it.

Also just gives YouTube ammunition to impose stricter protection against smaller violators like cobalt, like self running yt-dlp