Why we should add frontends

[ghost]

Adding frontends

We need to add frontends on the Privacy Guides website. It's ridiculously contradictory that YouTube frontends are officially suggested and yet people state:

Those services (not the proxies, I mean the services like Instagram etc.) by themselves are not private, so I dont think this should be on PrivacyGuides.

This was marked as the solution to https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/discussions/1639, which I find absurd. What I also find absurd is this idea:

The use case for Invidious is that it lets you watch YouTube without javascript enabled and the use case for Piped is it lets you watch age-restricted videos without a YouTube account.

Here's a list of frontends that similarly fits the bill of requiring no JavaScript (which is the reason why Invidious is apparently suggested) and yet are not listed on the website:

• Nitter; frontend for Twitter; does not require JavaScript; proxies requests
• Teddit; frontend for Reddit; does not require JavaScript; proxies requests
• Libreddit; frontend for Reddit; does not require JavaScript; proxies requests
• Wikiless; frontend for Wikipedia; does not require JavaScript; proxies requests

And I'm sure there's some more that people can list. So what's the deal? Why aren't these suggested?

Clearing up confusion w/video streaming section

I agree that there really isn't quite as huge of a confusion as it seems in the title, but it will be confusing if we do end up putting frontends on the website, which we should as noted above and below. The video streaming section should strictly only have privacy-respecting alternative services, as opposed to having both that and YouTube frontends, to create less confusion.

I propose that we move YouTube frontends to an entirely new section named Frontends (with client and web subsections, similarly named) where all the frontends mentioned above will also reside.

Closing thoughts on adding frontends

There is an overarching theme that the website establishes, and that is that this website is supposed to be a resource for "average, technology using adults"¹.

We already have a Windows and iOS hardening guide in the works. It's agreed that they are not privacy-respecting entities in and of themselves, and yet these guides (will) exist on the website. Why? For the purpose of our audience maintaining as much privacy as they can while using them.

The same theme should be at play here with frontends. The frontends we list would allow people to maintain as much privacy as they can while using them, when properly vetted. Frontends should be listed here because the services that they overtake are a part of the daily life of "average, technology using adults". Am I that insane to want privacy-respecting frontends for privacy-invasive services? I don't think so.

Footnotes

1. https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/wiki/Writing-Style#writing-for-our-audience ↩

[matchboxbananasynergy]

Hello there. Thank you for reaching out and expressing your concerns. I agree that this is something that we can do better, and we can re-evaluate our stance on frontends, as in some cases, they do add value and have tangible privacy or usability benefits in one way or another.

From the ones you've listed, here are my initial thoughts:

Nitter: This should be added because browsing through Twitter while not being logged in is a horrible experience and you're eventually prompted to login to continue. Furthermore, we already recommend Nitter for its RSS feed capabilities elsewhere on the site, so it makes sense to extend that to a full recommendation.

Teddit/Libreddit: These are less clear-cut cases, because old.reddit.com works fine without JS for the most part. However, trying to use the Reddit website on your mobile device (unsure if this extends to old.reddit.com) is pretty much impossible, as you're pushed to download the app to continue for pretty much everything. All in all, I think that if we are opening ourselves up to incluging frontends like that, we can include one of these two frontends, after evaluating their pros and cons.

Wikiless: This one doesn't really make sense to me, as I just tested it, and I'm able to browsing through Wikipedia on Tor Browser's safest mode which completely disables JS among other things. There is no threat model where using Wikiless really make sense. Proxying requests through the frontend isn't valid as you're just shifting trust. Using Tor in those cases makes a lot more sense (and Wikipedia doesn't block Tor). There may be other benefits that I have not yet discovered, but that leads me to my next point.

Privacy Guides is a project that welcomes discussion in the open, and we're more than happy to reconsider if good arguments are brought forth. You pointed out a discussion that had been marked as answered. FYI, you can still reply to one of those answers, they aren't locked.

My point is this: you just made an account, posted this discussion and then swiftly deleted it. That doesn't allow us to communicate and work together to improve the site, which is something that you honestly seem to be interested in wanting to help us do.

I warmly welcome you to create a new GitHub account and offer your opinions as we work our way through this discussion (or others), or at the very least, reach out to us on Matrix.

Thank you!

[ph00lt0]

@matchboxbananasynergy I thought it would be obvious but I can see it it isn't. Some frontends allow to consume content without subscriptions and avoid paywalls. This practice I would say legally can be problematic. Also there are quite some frontend services that straight up stream illegally distribute copyrighted material. A good example is cloudsteam on F-droid. Lately I saw quite some apps there also claiming to stream spotify for free. I just think it would be smart to add some kind of disclaimer warning the user to be careful violating their local laws on copyrighted materials when using such apps.

[matchboxbananasynergy]

@ph00lt0 I think this can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and I think that we would not list such a service or frontend, instead of listing it and just putting a warning.

Do you believe that any of the current frontends fall under this area?

[ph00lt0]

It's difficult to say tbh because copyright laws are very complex. You could argue that mirroring someone's content violates it, may be far fetched. I think the risk with these is minimal.

[eylenburg]

consume content without subscriptions and avoid paywalls. This practice I would say legally can be problematic

Don't think it's really an issue. That's like saying adblocking is piracy. Or using reader view.

I remember a while ago BILD (German newspaper) sued the makers of Adblock Plus with a similar argument and lost in court. It was found that users are allowed to modify websites.

[ph00lt0]

@eylenburg adblocking is fundamentally different because that's software you run locally. If you host someone's content (mirroring it) it's really a different story then running local software on your device to stop certain parts from loading.

[matchboxbananasynergy]

Initial work on this has begun by moving existing frontends to their own dedicated page. This allows us to add frontends like Nitter and Teddit in future PRs.

PR: privacyguides/privacyguides.org#1792

Edit: The PR has now been marged. A Frontends page has been created, which now allows us to fit in things like Nitter in a way that makes sense on the website.

[eylenburg]

Fully agree. Nitter and Libreddit/Teddit should be mentioned together with Invidious/Piped as frontends to popular websites that prompt you to log in to read content.

Also, as you said, the video streaming section should mention alternatives such as Peertube or LBRY rather than Youtube frontends

[ph00lt0]

LBRY is not privacy friendly at all. See no reason to list it. Their websites and clients are full of trackers.