As someone who values ​​privacy and personal data, I always try to use services and solutions that respect privacy. I say “try” because there are many things you can’t just abandon. Notes, Tasks, Calendar, Email—things that only serve personal use—can be switched to self-hosted. But YouTube or Spotify can’t.

The reason is that these platforms require a huge user ecosystem to operate. PeerTube could technically replace YouTube, but it lacks content, a user network, and established habits. And habits can’t be changed overnight.

Given this reality, another approach is using proxy applications to bridge the gap between users and the original platform. NewPipe and FreeTube are examples of proxy applications for YouTube; alternative clients for Reddit and X. They offer a more privacy-respecting experience while still leveraging content from the major players.

But ultimately, they remain completely dependent on the original platform. If YouTube changes its API, NewPipe, FreeTube, Invidious—YouTube’s client server—will have to change. Entire instances worldwide will cease functioning. Developers will rush to fix the code. And the cycle repeats.

I used to wonder if they ever got tired? If it felt pointless? Was it worth enduring endless code fixes in the name of privacy?

But perhaps for them, that question didn’t matter.

They knew it was an unequal battle. They knew they were completely passive. They knew that whenever the big platform wanted to change, they had to follow. And they still did. They plunged into the fight knowing they would lose, for the ideal of a freer online space where users have control over their own data.

And so I no longer see this as pointless. I respect them.

Where does the problem lie?

It’s not that the alternatives aren’t good. The problem is the data. YouTube has billions of hours of video. Spotify has tens of millions of songs, playlists, and recommendation algorithms. Users can’t manually move that data repository to another platform—simply because there are no tools, no protocols, and no permissions.

Even with a superior technical solution, average users—those who don’t care about privacy—won’t leave YouTube because they don’t see enough benefit to justify the trade-off. Those who do care are caught between idealism and reality: they know they shouldn’t use it, but they can’t help but use it.

I used to think the solution was a common standard. Europe did that with DAV to unify cloud storage, and more recently, pressure on messaging platforms to cross-interact under the Digital Markets Act. An open protocol for video and music would fundamentally solve the dependency problem.

But, I see this as a very distant prospect. ActivityPub and Fediverse existed, PeerTube used them, but failed because they couldn’t solve the problem of content and user networks. Technical standards can’t create content. An open protocol is useless if no one publishes content to it.

So we are still dependent. And we will remain dependent for a very long time.

In conclusion:

To those who are working day and night fixing code for client applications that respect privacy, I no longer see your work as meaningless. I see you as people building a seawall: each brick may be washed away, but it is that wall that prevents everything from collapsing completely.

You didn’t win, but you made the game more unique. And that is more worthy of respect than any victory.