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

Technology

37602 readers
410 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 47 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 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] james@lemmy.jamesj999.co.uk 6 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 (2 replies)
[–] poudlardo@terefere.eu 36 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 10 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)
[–] Dusty@lemmy.dustybeer.com 25 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 16 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

[–] palitu@lemmy.perthchat.org 8 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 (2 replies)
[–] yozul@beehaw.org 24 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 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 22 points 1 year ago (1 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.

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

Well, PeerTube works like torrents - which are proven to scale well.

[–] xtremeownage@lemmyonline.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll take you word for its implementation-

Main problem stems from monetization.

That, is the real issue. Persuading content creators to come elsewhere will always be a challenge, especially as... well. income/money is the reason most of them make videos.

This is compounded by the fact, the majority of us purposely block ads, and nobody is going to switch from youtube, to a platform filled with ads.

In terms of compensation, that gets even tricker. If- the content creators are being compensated, then the people hosted the petabytes worth of videos, is going to want to be compensated as well.

Honestly, as dumb as it sounds, the best way to implement this, might be in a form of storage-based crypto, where the coins are earned from the pieces of videos you are hosted.

Let's be honest- 99% of us don't pay a cent for watching youtube content, and over 90% of us block all of the ads.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Eavolution@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sammydee@readit.buzz 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] Gormadt@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago
[–] Bloonface@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Ivyymmy@lemmy.one 17 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.

[–] noodle@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Youtube is the only truly great social media platform left. It pains me to say it, but the bar is quite low! It pays creators better than its rivals and its premium subscription is generally considered good value. Remember - it's both users and creators that need to migrate.

Really, there cannot be an alternative until there's one that can afford to pay content creators the same or more than YouTube can. No content, no platform.

It also needs to be able to distribute the cost for hosting insane amounts of video data, which is notoriously expensive. A single instance could bankrupt a person if it got hit with a large influx of users. Some lemmy instances has to brace for a rough ride as Reddit refugees jumped ship, and YouTube has a lot more users than Reddit. Even a tiny migration could be hell to deal with.

There will also need to be a purge of extremist content from any platform that wants to invite a migration. If all you have is weirdos evangelising dodgy cryptocoins and conspiracy theorists complaining about being booted off YouTube, nobody will want to go.

Peertube just isn't the platform for this to happen. At least not yet.

[–] Gsus4@lemmy.one 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I only disagree with one thing on that: youtube is not a social media platform. It is horrible for discussions, topic discovery and organization, the comment sections and chat are worse than 4chan. It is a video diffusion platform, but not truly social media.

[–] sznio@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

Which is sad, because it used to be a much more social platform. I used to run a small channel in 2007 and I'd get people messaging me, or adding me to friends (yes, that was a thing on YouTube).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] crisisingot@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A lot of people in this thread talking about how it's not feasible because content creators wouldn't get paid and I agree if you expect that same quality of content.

But I think peertube opens the door for a lot of the more organic content of just people sharing interesting/entertaining/educational videos with others without any expectation of being paid. I've already watched some really good videos on peertube that feel a lot more like the old days of YouTube.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] millions@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 10 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.

[–] TheOtherJake@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Better chance of YT -> Odysee

[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 12 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)
[–] tvmole@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aetherion@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

I see existential problems for peertube, because of copyright infringement.

[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Youtubers and streamers are different as they create content for getting paid by those services. Peer to peer video content cant replace youtube as it is without government level universal income basically. Most dont make enough from patreon or w/e to survive

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Youtubers generally make more from sponsorships than adsense, at least from what I've gathered. The reason to still run adsense even though it might annoy your audience is that if you don't you get penalised by the algorithm.

Where I could easily see peertube taking off is with public broadcasters and generally media companies doing video that's free to view, as far as youtubers is concerned I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. nebula started to federate... they can still have a "paying customer vs. free content" type of separation while probably saving on bandwidth costs.

A big thing would be the likes of vimeo seeing this as an opportunity.

[–] F4stL4ne@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 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 11 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 6 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 (17 replies)
[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago (2 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 8 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)
[–] beefcat@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Linus Tech Tips recently did a video where they go over the cost and complexity of running something like YouTube.

Frankly I’m surprised 4k video wasn’t locked behind Premium from the start.

Part of me wonders if YouTube could have scaled up more gracefully if they pushed a subscription option earlier (and priced it better, I hate how it’s bundled with a music service I don’t want).

Ads fucking suck, but I think most people recognize they are a necessary evil in order to run any kind of free social video platform at a meaningful scale.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Thedogspaw@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Youtube is great as long as you don't read the comments

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] flashgnash@lemm.ee 6 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

[–] Los@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well Google is gutting ad blockers. So maybe there will be an extremely minor exodus yet.

[–] unfnknblvbl@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

as disgusting as it feels, I think paying for Youtube Premium is a pretty good deal. You get no ads, and creators get much, much more money per view. I'm not sure what it is for videos, but with Youtube Music, by band gets literally ten times as much per listen from as Premium subscriber than an "ad supported" one. Given the sheer amount of otherwise free high quality material on the platform, the tiny amount they ask each month for it is pretty decent. IMO, YMMV, IANAL, consult your doctor before taking, etc

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

Fair point. I watch a lot of YT and block ads (though it sounds like they're finally cracking down on that). I support some creators on Nebula and Patreon, but I guess YT Premium is basically like those.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›