this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
531 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37699 readers
274 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
oh look, another web service who wants to strangle its users for money and ad views :D when's a peertube instance going to get some big creators on it supported by viewers? that'll do it, i bet
Seems unlikely that a creator would jump ship from a platform that pays them to a platform that doesn’t. That being said, lots of creators also constantly complain about demonetization, so maybe they’ll start to get fed up and move to purely in-video sponsorship things. Seems most likely from a creator that’s already on a platform like nebula
Most big youtubers have in-video ads now anyways. I'm not sure what the ratio of their revenue comes from youtube ads vs in-video ads, but youtube seems pretty trigger happy about demonetizing videos. Sometimes entire channels. If someone gets the majority of their revenue from other sources than youtube ads, I could see them migrating to something like peertube.
Even with in-video ads, those must be paid based on historical (or actual?) view counts right? No matter how big you are, there's no way you're going to maintain view counts when switching away from YouTube.
You're allowed to upload the same .mp4 file to multiple websites. There's absolutely no reason why a creator that isn't getting YouTube ad money couldn't upload to YouTube and PeerTube at the same time. Presumably if they are getting YouTube monetization, they have some kind of exclusivity agreement.
That is quite true.
you're definitely right on most points. but, to your point, if a creator was on a federated instance of peertube then they don't have to worry about the wishy-washy, everchanging rules of youtube :3
I could see someone making some fork of peertube that helps creators get paid. May not be free but could get creators willing to join
if it's not free what's the benefit of using PeerTube? You're basically describing nebula
Unfortunately most people post to YouTube. They might not know about Peertube. So Peertube just doesn't have the content.
Here's to hoping as lemmy, mastodon, etc. get name recognition peertube gets their time of day too.
How does peertube work exactly? Because if it hosts the video on just the one "instance" or server or whatever a viral video will almost certainly have it's legs cut from under it very quickly. Don't get me wrong I want YouTube to have viable competition but videos are huge.
You basically get how it works. The tech isn’t there yet to replace YouTube.
From the documentation:
A PeerTube instance can mirror other PeerTube videos to improve bandwidth use.
The instance administrator can choose between multiple redundancy strategies (cache trending videos or recently uploaded videos etc.), set their maximum size and the minimum duplication lifetime. Then, they choose the instances they want to cache in Manage follows -> Following admin table.
Videos are kept in the cache for at least min_lifetime, and then evicted when the cache is full.
hear, hear!
Hopefully once the issue of the ridiculous amount of resources needed for such a service is resolved. This is why we don't have any viable youtube alternative yet, especially one that isn't a corporate pile of junk. Once you get to a certain size if you don't rake in the cash you shut down. So hopefully peer to peer saves the day.
yup, even youtube isn't profitable. Video remains one of the largest sinks of resources. A 4K movie is stored on a disc of about 66GB, so about 30GB per hour of 4k video. Even with peertube it'd take the best hobbyists to run even a modest server for a few streamers. We're talking people with PB level of storage capacities now with fiber lines to their house to truly host peertube alternatives, and if we're talking cloud we're talking thousands per month.
It's not impossible, I don't want to get people down, but that's the major hurdle
Every video maker should host his own peertube instance with only 1 user.
yeah but then we get a youtube esque site of nerds who love hoarding hard drives and setting up selfhosted services. Which is great, I did that, but the vast majority of youtubers don't have the knowledge/don't want to set that up
Which makes me wonder - was the push for 60fps across the platform a move to make competition harder?
I'm not aware of anyone that was using it as a leg up on them.
this is true. having said that - i follow a peertube-based french outfit called blast (can't speak french, just look at the pictures). if i go to a different site (peertube.stream, liberta.vip) and look at a video, the streams are coming off video.blast-info.fr.
there's no question video is a huge resource suck, and that nobody would want to host a lot of other people's videos. i just wonder, if the model is federated indexes but owner-hosted video, i wonder if there's a use case that can work at scale.
I do like the idea of having individuals host their own channels, but the bar for entry needs to become incredibly simple. Granted kids can spin up minecraft servers now, so at least that easy for online hosting. Self hosting is a bit more arduous for sure, but if people can host their own plex servers then I'd expect most video creators to be able to run peer tube - when it gets that easy.
hopefully 💙 video codecs have gotten pretty good, and maybe they'll get even better to where, like you're saying, we don't have to shovel so many resources into hosting something like a peertube. crossing fingers 🤞
I subscribe to nebula for this reason, directly support creators and it's very reasonably priced.
never heard of nebula, thank you for bringing it up :D
Did they ever get around to implementing playlists and autoplay of some sort? I really wanted to get into that service, but the absence of those two things just killed it for me
I've found Nebula to be great for a few creators I follow, but the amount of content isn't high enough to wean me off of YouTube completely.
How is peertube in terms of hosting costs? I would assume much higher than lemmy or mastodon considering it's all video content.
hosting cost for peertube would probably be astronomical since you're likely hosting the videos yourself :/ unless there is some sort of federation that kind of works like bittorrent. that would be awesome
Peertube is federated. It seems to work similarly to Lemmy. I went on a random instance and clicked "discover" and noticed that I see videos from other instances. So at least the hosting cost is distributed across instances.
The other issue then is the bandwidth. Peertube uses p2p among viewers, so if there are many viewers at the same time they can take a significant load off from the server. Instances can also cache each other's videos to split the bandwidth cost between them.
I think these design decisions means that it is possibly viable, though it is definitely way more expensive than non-video federated communities.
Peertube will unfortunately never be an answer because of the lack of way for creators to get paid for watchtime
I've had good experiences with Odysee. Not as much content yet, and it's missing DIY videos, but I don't see problems yet.
Odysee lacks of moderation. It's full of conspiration bullshit, racist videos and horrible stuff.
this is very interesting, ty 💙
I'm confused about this take. YouTube clearly has hosting costs and also pays creators. That money has to come from somewhere. They offer two options, ads or subscription. You could argue that the number of ads is too many or the cost of the subscription is too high, but demanding a service be free just because it's technologically possible to block ads seems weird.