You-get: Dumb downloader that scrapes the web

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An open‑source media downloader called you-get is drawing attention for requiring bug reports to come as pull requests with failing tests, a policy some see as an effective spam filter and others criticize as shutting out non‑programmer users. Commenters compare you-get to more established tools like yt-dlp, questioning what advantages it offers beyond a similar extractor-based approach for downloading videos and audio from popular sites. The tool also revives broader debates over ad blocking, DRM and client attestation, content archiving, and the ethics of using such software on platforms that already offer paid options or directly support small creators.

Project issue policy and contributor requirements

  • Main controversy: maintainers require bug reports to come as pull requests containing at least one failing test, not just an issue.
  • Supporters say this:
    • Acts as a hard filter against low-effort, noisy issues and support requests.
    • A failing test is a strong, non-gamable proof of a bug and focuses scarce maintainer time.
    • For this project, adding such tests can be relatively simple (often a URL-based case).
  • Critics argue:
    • Many competent users cannot code or do not know Python, git, or the project’s test setup.
    • Good bug reports can be written without writing code; this gate keeps out valuable feedback.
    • Some of the “good example” commits already look too complex for casual users.
  • There is debate over whether this is a justified survival tactic for overburdened maintainers or an exclusionary barrier.

Spam, issue abuse, and project sustainability

  • The policy is partly framed as protection against GitHub spam and support-style questions.
  • Some point to rising spam and entitled behavior in OSS issue trackers, including off-topic and abusive reports.
  • Suggested alternatives include better issue templates and more aggressive closing of low-quality issues.
  • Others say ignoring/closing isn’t enough; pre-emptive gates are needed to prevent burnout.

Comparison to yt-dlp and functionality

  • Multiple commenters ask why one would use this over yt-dlp, which already supports many sites.
  • you-get appears extractor-based and functionally similar but “less sophisticated” in some eyes.
  • Some note minor implementation curiosities (e.g., its own MP4 joiner despite ffmpeg dependency).
  • Overall, the thread does not reach a clear consensus on unique advantages versus yt-dlp.

Use cases and user experience

  • People discuss adjacent workflows: downloading audio-only streams, integrating with players (mpv, mobile apps, browser extensions), and automation scripts.
  • One user reports a specific Python TypeError when running you-get, even with non–age-restricted videos; others confirm similar failures and suggest checking Python versions or using containers.

Ethics, copyright, and platform responses

  • Debate over tools that bypass ads, paywalls, and DRM-like measures:
    • Some justify them due to intrusive advertising and content preservation needs.
    • Others worry this behavior drives platforms toward stricter client attestation and DRM.
  • Bandcamp support is questioned ethically since the platform already offers paid downloads; others counter that tooling and automation convenience still matter.