this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
144 points (98.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35869 readers
2595 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I know memory is fairly cheap but e.g. there are millions of new videos on youtube everyday, each probably few hundred MBs to few GBs. It all has to take enormous amount of space. Not to mention backups.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tentphone@lemmy.fmhy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Twitter probably doesn't take to that much space (comparatively) because it's mostly text with some images.

YouTube is another matter. There's an enormous amount of content uploaded to YouTube, as much as 30,000 hours of video uploaded per hour. That's around 1PB per hour assuming most videos are uploaded in 1080p.

I wasn't able to find an official source for what YouTube's total data storage is, but this estimate puts it at 10 EB or 10,000,000,000 GB of video.

On Amazon AWS that would cost $3 Billion per month to store. The actual cost to Google is probably much lower because of economy of scale and because it is run by and optimized for them, but it is still a colossal figure. They offset the cost with ads, data collection, and premium subscription, but I would imagine running YouTube is still a net loss for Google.

[–] sab@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm generally the first to criticize Google, but when it comes to pushing ads on YouTube I'm having a hard time really condemning them for it. I struggle to wrap my head around how this service can exist at all.

Also, second to direct transactions, I'd much rather have Google make money through ads than anything else.

[–] Max_UL@lemmy.pro 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Agreed, I pay for YouTube premium and in the world of corporate crap and fees and stuff I’m ok with that value trade off relatively. Hell, I would have paid for Reddit, too, if they weren’t assholes.

Edit: I mistyped Google premium instead of YouTube premium… same place though of course

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Issue has become that in this era of business you could drop 100k on a car and they'll still data mine information on you and record you. So you really only paid to be less annoyed, but the tracking remains a core part of the system.

Now some stuff like proton email do make privacy a part of their business, but that is becoming rarer. Everyone is the product by default no matter how much money they pay for a service these days.

[–] NightOwl@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

They'll make it through data collection too even if you pay for premium. You are still the product even if you pay in this era.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If it's really 1 PB per hour, and mostly 1080p or higher (which seems likely, unlike the assumptions in that Quora answer) then they would fill about 9 EB every year! Obviously the rate would be lower in the past, but that 30k link was a number as of a year ago anyway.

[–] seeCseas@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I would imagine running YouTube is still a net loss for Google.

I doubt it, youtube generates about 30 billion in revenue per year!

[–] luthis@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Holy shit I didn't know it was that insane.

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

It gets even crazier when you realize they are sort of obligated to keep every video forever. So it will just keep growing indefinitely since they have no way to trim it down. We may eventually reach a point where the majority of the content that they host is older than most living people and the uploader has since passed on.

[–] WhoRoger@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They won't, eventually they'll pull a Imgur and start deleting stuff that hasn't been accessed in a while.

I mean didn't they just announce they'll start deleting inactive accounts?

But even if not, storage always becomes cheaper with time, so it's just a matter of copying old data to a newer medium. Eventually that will become an issue, but for now, capacity and storage density keeps growing.

[–] moon_matter@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean didn’t they just announce they’ll start deleting inactive accounts?

They stated they would delete the accounts but that the videos would remain. But obviously the policy could change. My point was more that a ton of people would be watching content that was uploaded by and for people who are no longer alive. Which makes me feel uncomfortable in a way I can't quite describe. Like a modern version of seeing a ghost.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

If I remember correctly YouTube has been run at a loss basically since its inception, but it's such a popular platform (and such an efficient vehicle for advertisement) that they keep it running. Google makes up the difference elsewhere. It's like Costco's loss leader hot dogs, it literally costs them money to sell it to you, but it gets you inside the store where you're likely to buy other stuff. YouTube costs Google money to maintain, but it gets people creating Google accounts and watching ads, and recently over the past few years it also gets people buying YT Premium.

Besides, so much propaganda of all sorts is channeled through YouTube that if Google ever seriously considered shutting it down I expect they'd have a boardroom full of shareholders immediately putting their foot down about it. YouTube is no longer about the cost, it's about the platform accessibility and the existing userbase.