this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
103 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
186 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
 

So Elon gutted Twitter, and people jumped ship to Mastodon. Now spez did... you know... and we're on Lemmy and Kbin. Can we have a YouTube to PeerTube exodus next? With the whole ad-pocalypse over there, seems like Google is itching for it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BitPirate@feddit.de 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm afraid the barrier to entry for this is much higher, as video streaming is quite expensive. You need a lot of storage and also a lot of traffic.

[–] tvmole@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah, good point. The others are mainly hosting text and some images

[–] Double_A@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I see potential in a site that offers an alternative algorithm, or curated list of channels, but still links to youtube for the streaming itself. The content that Youtube shows me has gotten quite bad lately... and the search doesn't even work properly.

[–] james@lemmy.jamesj999.co.uk 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems like PeerTube does allow peer to peer streaming of watched videos too, so that might help mitigate the bandwidth requirements. The storage and transcoding requirements will be far larger than things like Lemmy though, agreed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] poudlardo@terefere.eu 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The main thing here is that twitter and Reddit dont pay their popular usées (massively followed accounts i mean), but YouTube does. As long as PeerTube won't have a business modèle, and they're never will because that's mot what it was created for, i dont think there will ne any migration

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

This.

YouTube and Twitch are in this same boat. The video format is a hugely lucrative one. Many people consume it passively, either in the background or while doing other things. The ad exposure is huge, and there's a ton of value in having people invested in your platform, so financial incentives are high.

There just aren't enough people who are willing or able to put that much effort into making rich content for free, especia6when there's a payed alternative

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] yozul@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It doesn't really seem workable right now. A video platform that just lets anybody upload anything and everything onto a large main server is going to use completely absurd amounts of storage and bandwidth, so PeerTube can only really work if most people either self-host or join small communities to host their videos.

Unfortunately, PeerTube is absolutely terrible for discovering videos you'd enjoy on smaller instances. Until they can fix that, there's really no hope of it taking off. I'd love to see it happen, but we're just not there right now.

[–] bazoogle@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Yea, having a competitor to youtube seem near impossible. The only reason youtube survived was because Google bought them, who was able to provide them with the insane resources required for a video hosting platform. Similar to Twitch being bought by Amazon, which has AWS.

[–] GlowingLantern@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

There's https://sepiasearch.org/ for global video search. It's a search engine, run by the developers, that indexes every approved instance. So if you're only interested in watching videos (and don't mind searching for them), then it's even easier than other Fediverse services, because you have one central place you can go to for all your videos.

[–] Dusty@lemmy.dustybeer.com 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've looked at peertube a few times, and everytime I do, it seems to be filled with nothing but videos about the latest cryptoscamcoin. I have zero interest in that at all. Until they get content worth watching, it's not going to happen.

[–] grant@toast.ooo 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s the chicken & egg problem; people won’t use peertube because there’s no good content on there and content creators wont go there because the people aren’t there

[–] AnagrammadiCodeina@feddit.it 4 points 1 year ago

Yes but it's the creators that brings the people. YouTube worked because at the beginning it was the only place where you could upload videos and nobody was thinking about making a dime.

[–] palitu@lemmy.perthchat.org 4 points 1 year ago

But they are also going to struggle to monetise their content.

Does peer tube have monetisation features? Or would it all be sponsors, patreons and product placement?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I will volunteer resources all day long to post a mostly text platform such as mastodon/lemmy/etc.

But- doing video streaming, consumes a lot of resources.

Using, my plex as an example, it supports a few handfuls of people. But- scaling that to hundreds/thousands... Its not going to be fun.

Videos take up a ton of room. Streaming them, consumes resources for transcoding.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ivyymmy@lemmy.one 14 points 1 year ago

For YouTube is extremely difficult, people are very used to it, and they are not moving to other platforms when there are decisions clearly against the users as they depend entirely on the creator's decision (and they will not earn as much money on other platforms... They are still "workers"), it is not as easy as leaving Twitter and Reddit for Mastodon and Lemmy since in this case their creators are the community of users themselves.

There is also the problem of needing a huge storage to save the videos, unfeasible for an open source/FOSS community project unless the rates of adoption are enormous enough and everyone contribute/donate, or at least until we start using more efficient codecs and video compression.

[–] sammydee@readit.buzz 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's going to take megabucks. Huge bandwidth, storage and compute. Who's going to pay for it?

[–] Bloonface@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Everybody gangsta until they realise that their usage of services incurs costs

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Memes and text comments can be easily self hosted, but video hosting requires an expensive server farm with petabytes of SSDs, bandwidth and lots of GPUs for transcoding. Ok if you make a subscription only service like nebula or floatplane, but it's impossibile to host an ad-free service and rely on the few donations.

[–] meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If a platform didn't do transcoding, and requested content creators do it themselves, I wonder if that'd help enough to make it more feasible? Then its just bandwidth and storage, and storage has only gotten cheaper over the years.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Eavolution@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Another big thing I can see being a problem (other than cost and lack of monetization) would be the lack of Content ID. For as much shit as people give it, it does solve a big problem of lengthy and expensive lawsuits, especially for smaller channels who don't necessarily have a company behind them.

See Tom Scott's video on copyright.

[–] tvmole@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Speaking of, got any good peertube channels? Tbh, I'm more familiar with nebula and floatplane - where YT creators made their own platform. Maybe that's where things are headed

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Nebula is not bad. I paid for it for a year, but had some issues with not enough content and the buggy UI on Firefox. If Youtube blocks adblockers, I'll certainly go back to it.

[–] TheOtherJake@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Better chance of YT -> Odysee

[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

It might have potential and the video quality is decent, but unless they sort out their banning policy it will only attract nutjobs and all kind of anti[something]ists, [something]phobes… etc.
Reading comment sections is making me puke.

All the crypto crap is not helping as well.
I am prefering paying some money for nebula, which might not have a big creator base but everything I need, sometimes some bonus content and no ads. But this one is not for everyone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] makanimike@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

content creators aren't gonna go to peertube since there is no monetization there. they ain't gonna just rely on patreon, and sponsorships from AG1 and surfshark.

[–] webghost0101@lemmy.fmhy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

There already are some that are fully relying on external income and leave there video unmonitized by google. But yeah most smaller channels dont have that option.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 1 year ago

YouTube is one of the only groups that actually makes a profit..or at least gets close to making one - the metric seems to change with the economy.

Also it has a monetization model, which makes it infinitely more enticing than an instance that's more likely to cost money.

Finally the cost of storing and serving video is exponentially higher than images gifs and text, making it more prohibitedly expensive the more users you have.

Sure you could have a pretty ok system if they added a built in patreon like mechanism to peertube, with a revenue split. But it remains to be seen if creators and people are willing to negotiate and give up enough revenue in order to keep the server alive. And also it becomes a bit more businesslike - as you've seen with twitch, giving a worse split is bound to cause backlash and people to drop your instance, even if it's necessary to break even.

There's next to no chance you'll have an easy time if you wanted to migrate your account to another instance - especially if you wanted to keep all your videos. You'd probably have to re-upload them all as most migration setups on the fediverse don't move post data due to the prohibitive amount of data there is, more so for pictures and video

I think we'd be more likely to see pixelfed replace Instagram and pixiv than peertube replace YouTube.

[–] millions@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think at most you’d see people cross posting videos there as a secondary platform

[–] Bloonface@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

That is precisely why I run my own instance, it's essentially a backup from YouTube of my own dumb videos: https://peertube.bloonface.com

But honestly that's pretty much all it is. It's not really worth much more than that to me.

[–] F4stL4ne@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

YouTube has a bunch of issues:

1/ climate change:

  • A big centralised server needs lots of power, of cooling, a big pipe for upload/download,
  • algorithms, metrics, content id, big size imagery (4k), all this is really needing a bunch of energy in itself to run,
  • advertising in general is an ecological nightmare.

2/ monetisation:

  • content id is a gamble for creators. A video can be demonetised for the dumbest reasons under the pretext of copyright infringement,
  • no one knows how the algorithm works, it means one video can be suggested to a lot of people and the next one won't. So income is randomised,
  • the purpose of monetisation for content creators exist to legitimate the advertising and the monetisation of user's personal data's. Not the other way around. YouTube is not a platform made to retribute creators.

Going on Peertube could mostly fix every ecological problems for the lost of the uncertainty of the monetisation system.

Plus there is a psychological weigh on creators that goes with the monetisation and algorithm of YouTube.

[–] Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How would such a system be more efficient? That is very counter intuitive. In addition the question would be who pays for PeerTube. Because unlike Mastodon or Lemmy and the likes, storing large amounts of video files is actually damn expensive.

[–] F4stL4ne@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the average successful YouTube content creators can invest in one computer to host his own content on peertube. For start that's all what is needed.

Video storage is a false problem, creators already store their content locally (to not lose the work if there is any issue).

On the technical side, others have answer that question here but in short:

  • decentralised with peer to peer means that the more a video is shared the more it will be available, even with small size pipes (when I'm watching your content, others can watch it through me),
  • you don't have to pay for hudge and hardware so less money wasted, but it needs a strong network of pipes, which can improve internet navigation as a all,
  • instances are nodes of a network, if one fails the others stays up,
  • better scalability cause p2p,
  • peertube can run on rather old tech so I'd say it's more efficient.

I will need more precise questions for better answers.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] sojourn@geddit.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If you think an ad-pocalypse is bad, then why would they jump to a platform with no ads at all? They'd likely be paying to be on that platform. Also the fact streaming video from a self hosting platform is much more demanding then text fedi instances like Lemmy or Mastodon. Also no way the fedi could keep up with even a fraction of YouTube's creator tools, or their audience which is their bottom line.

YouTube will probably never be replaced. We can at least go for private front ends like Invidious.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Not going to happen. All the alternatives so far are attracting all the nutjobs and platform ends up with loth of garbage conspiracy videos, antisemitic, racist…etc users who would be otherwise straight banned from youtube.

[–] techno156@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

I don't think so. The idea might be nice, but Peertube has neither the audience, nor the monetisation of platforms like YouTube. Moving to peertube just isn't a good business decision for that.

Video hosting is also expensive, especially since they would also have to deal with DMCA claims and all of that. YouTube wasn't really profitable, or even breaking even until rather recently, nearly a full decade after they started. It's not really economical to do video hosting quite like that.

Peertube might be good for casual use, but I also can't see any content creators using it. (Not unlike 2005 YouTube in that sense), and the lack of content creators also means a lack of audience (and through them, content) that might attract more users over. People are more likely to move over to something like Patreon or Twitch instead.

[–] Drewelite@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I think this is super interesting, and a really good idea. But as others have stated in this thread, very costly.

However until technology catches up, maybe we could have an interstitial federated platform. One that's super decentralized. Like 90% of the users running their own instance, decentralized. Anyone with a NAS can host they're own vids. Then the other 10% that are willing to host high bandwidth, high capacity servers, can work as caching for the most popular videos.

[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think YouTube is possible peer to peer, Lemmy/Reddit and Mastodon/twitter are mostly text with some images, not too difficult to store and network. YouTube on the other hand has astronomically high costs to store and serve their videos, more hardware than people have to spare for free

[–] TheLuchenator@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

its really interesting how much we want an alt to common social medias now imo. for example, streamers are migrating from Twitch to Kick, and as you mentioned, Youtube to PeerTube/rumble

[–] k1k@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All these companies are constantly pushing just how greedy they can be and it's getting so tiresome. Short term gains and shareholders are the worst thing to happen to a free Internet aside from governments

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arth@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have a look at tilvids.com. I know of a couple of large YouTubers that crosspost their stuff there, and there are probably more that I don't know about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mim@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Doubt it, it's expensive to host and creators won't have ways to ways to monetize it as easily as YouTube.

Also, I wouldn't really call the Twitter and Reddit cases "exodus". As much as I would like to see the fediverse succeed, the number of users on mastodon and Lemmy are just a blip on the radar.

I still see the same links on my Lemmy frontage days after they have been submitted, it's far less active than Reddit.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›