[Discussion] New instances rules

[SamantazFox]

I'd like to (re)open discussion regarding the new instances rules that were added in fd84d13. I know that those have already been discussed a bit in #74 & #76, but I'd like to collect the thoughs of the (currently in the list) instance owner themselves on that matter.

I'm myself, quite against any kind of tracking and advertisement (1) in the official list. In my opinion, the official instances list must be curated from any sort of anti-user system, as users will be sent on one of those when they use the automatic instance redirect option. And as a user myself, I wouldn't land on an instance filled with ads or trackers.

So @tio-trom, @unixfox, @artemislena , @hys0star, @TechnicalSuwako, @FireMasterK, @RiversideRocks, @namazso, @ItsSt0ne, @mintphin and @11Tuvork28, what are your thought on that?

Of course @iv-org/developers too!

(1): I don't consider writing "this instance is sponsored by [brand]" in the banner as an advertisement. Such things may be tolerated, imo.

[SamantazFox]

PS: while we won't come back on some rules, like the mandatory publication of the source code, because of AGPL license, I want to have your thoughs on ads/tracking, and if you encounter(ed) any difficulties with the previous or current rules.

[89Q12]

I think it is paradox to put any sort of tracking/ads/analytics in any instance because I personally use Invidious just to escape youtube tracking.
Therefore I think its not a good idea to put tracking/ads/analytics in but to be clear I also don't see banners like you mentioned not as ads.

[namazso]

Tracking should clearly be disallowed since it's against what Invidious stands for.
As for ads, I think they aren't a problem as long as it comes with no tracking (but maybe should be restricted to banner). If ad funds are used to run the instance, is that sponsoring or no? I don't think we want to be the one to decide.

[SamantazFox]

I think it is paradox to put any sort of tracking/ads/analytics in any instance because I personally use Invidious just to escape youtube tracking. Therefore I think its not a good idea to put tracking/ads/analytics in but to be clear I also don't see banners like you mentioned not as ads.

@11Tuvork28 Mhh, yeah. Thanks for your input :)

If ad funds are used to run the instance, is that sponsoring or no?

I'd say no. Sponsoring is when a specific company or other organization provides ressources (hardware or monetary) for an instance to run. Similar to what is done with some IRC networks (libera.chat, e.g)

I don't think we want to be the one to decide.

The idea is for us to gather the opinions of everyone. we'll then see if anything has to be changed, e.g if some rules (like uptime) are too strict, or if everyone agrees that analytics (even selfhosted) are bad, we'll change that.

[ItsSt0ne]

These rules don't really have any effect on my particular instance, so I'm fine with them, and agree with the sentiment of having the instance list curating to the extent of having a baseline for privacy, maintenance, and reliability.
One rule that seems to be vague or otherwise not very helpful to these ends is the requirement to list anti-bot protection. If the goal is to protect privacy, I don't really see how that advances it, since analytics is already covered. If the goal is to let users know beforehand that an instance may be blocking him or her, then it's only arguably saving a click, especially since it seems what most people are using allow configuration that may allow said user regardless.
Think it would be more helpful to understand the reasoning behind the rule, and either remove it for redundancy or have a rule that addresses the requirement more directly (maybe stating what exact protections there are, what blocks are in place, etc.)
Overall a positive change, and wouldn't be discontent with the rules as they are now.

[tio-trom]

I think it is a big irony to have something like invidious that is meant to get rid of ads and trackers and make youtube user friendly, to then have invidious instances add ads and trackers. I mean probably they should be allow to do anything they want with their instances, but for the official invidious list would not be a good idea to let such instances on the list. I want to escape youtube's ads and trackers and use invidious to then see other kinds of ads and get tracked!?

As for "sponsored by" that's still an advertisement regardless of the intent. I agree that's less aggressive than other forms of advertisement, but I think I am old enough to realize that such ads will never be just that, they will morph and become more aggressive.

But overall I think is a good idea to not let ads and trackers on any instances on your official list.

[tio-trom]

One last point, I think is unfair to remove the ads from my youtube videos via invidious, to then advertise your stuff while people watch my videos. Even "sponsored by" at the top of the page when people come across my youtube videos, I think you are using my content to make a profit, be it monetary or get free hosting or whatever. This may be a great reason for youtube to say that invidious is profiting off of youtube's content and servers. But if you are purely a platform that removes ads and trackers, then you are like an ad-blocker, and not an ad-blocker that blocks some ads and insert theirs. So it may be a good idea overall for the invidious project to protect itself from giving reasons to youtube to take invidious down.

[wiredsis]

No problem! While a lot of people use Invidious to escape Google's intrusive advertisement, such a rule could ensure people don't take advantage of a possible loophole.

[hys0star]

Instances shown in the list must be safe.
However, using a tracker and Clownflare is not safe to look at.
It is not a problem to use trackers and Clownflare for Invidious. But I don't think these instances should be listed.
If you have to use trackers and Clownflare, I don't think you should disclose your instances to the list at all.

[hys0star]

It would be a good idea to display instances using trackers or Clownflare separately.

[wiredsis]

It would be a good idea to display instances using trackers or Clownflare separately.

Agreed! I forgot Clownflare included trackers. Guess having people die under their business is not their only mistake.

[SamantazFox]

So, something like 2 or 3 lists would be a good idea:

• the official one, 100% curated from tracker/ads/MitM
• the medium-quality list, where we put probatory and outdated, but otherwise clean, instances
• the low quality list, which contains trackers/ads or use CF/MitM

[TheFrenchGhosty]

@ItsSt0ne

Think it would be more helpful to understand the reasoning behind the rule

Most antibot protection use cookies or JavaScript, so that way it's clear where those come from.

[ItsSt0ne]

Most antibot protection use cookies or JavaScript, so that way it's clear where those come from.

Do agree with disclosing this, though it was brought up in #148 that there are many methods that don't affect end users.
I think it's redundant, given that those changes should fall under either AGPL or rules 9/10, and people should just feel free to disclose what their changes are and how they impact end users (such as trom.tf referencing modifying CSS).