Same goes with NewPipe - you're using YouTube without actually paying for bandwidth, storage costs or the video author.
So you're not actually getting yourself rid of Google or tracking, you're just using their resources without paying the asking price.
Use other alternatives instead.
From a privacy perspective, MicroG and NewPipe are much less intrusive than Google Play Service and YouTube, because the open source apps send less user data to Google.
I'd feel similarly about having someone advertise a way to crack Slack enterprise features instead of using something like Matternmost.
A nitpick, but somewhat important: they're not services, they're products. Pieces of software. Alternative user agents. Very opinionated web browsers, if you like.
It accesses YouTube via "the video playback pages of the Website" so it satisfies 5.1 article C. I don't see any limitation to using browsers there.
Indeed, article H strongly implies that it is allowed to use non-browser software to access these pages - otherwise spiders and robots would be banned and there would be no point to the request limit in that article.
> So you're not actually getting yourself rid of Google or tracking, you're just using their resources without paying the asking price.
I love newpipe. I block ads on my desktop, I'm not going to feel bad blocking them on my phone. Google has taken far too much from us, from me, for me to worry about their bandwidth or storage costs. Somehow I think the multinational billionaires will manage.
As for video creators (who themselves are regularly screwed over by Google) they should be supported using other channels.
NewPipe actually saves bandwidth when you listen to audio only. As I recall, it parses the HTML and doesn't download the wasteful video stream, if you want just the audio.
Google should thank NewPipe users for their responsible use of their free resource.
Depending the country where you are based it might not matter, it might fall into interoperability legal exceptions.
Google's asking price includes performing invasive surveillance. So when dodging Google's surveillance, it is impossible to access any content hosted at Google while living up to your standard. Which makes your argument a bit dishonest.
Now sure, there is a straightforward argument that the best way to push back against Google is to completely avoid content hosted there, which discourages others from hosting there in the first place. But you did not make this argument, I suspect because it's overly optimistic in an environment of heavy network effects.
