PeerTube: A ‘Censorship’ Resistent YouTube Alternative(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
PeerTube: A ‘Censorship’ Resistent YouTube Alternative
https://torrentfreak.com/peertube-a-censorship-resistent-youtube-alternative-180623/
118 comments
Without this it's hard to imagine PeerTube being able to scale to a fraction of YouTube's level. Video streaming is just too expensive. Being able to offload it to viewers during high traffic is a killer feature.
Google handles this in the same way as Netflix by living in your ISP's data centers. Google has an edge global cache that can live at ISPs to reduce bandwidth usage.
https://peering.google.com/#/options/google-global-cache
https://peering.google.com/#/options/google-global-cache
Google and Netflix can do this, because ISPs have to let them host there to avoid massive burden on their network. An individual who wants to host their own videos cannot. So, as Sir_Cmpwn indicates, some sort of torrent-esque system is needed to let individual users have some sort of option that avoids crazy bandwidth costs.
Does torrent or any other protocol out there try to prioritize peers that are within the same ASN or something similar? Many protocols ignore the physical network, but here it seems like it would help to be smarter.
There's no need for manual priorization for nearer ASN's on BitTorrent, as is this builtin implicitly by prioritizing faster connections with higher bandwidths automatically. If a faster connection exists in a different ASN, the faster one is prioritized. Nuclear proof dynamic design, similar to TCP/IP.
Huh, this is a really good question/idea.
I heard that BitTorrent is 40% traffic of today Internet
I've been digging around peer tube for a few days - a lot of cool stuff there.
I wonder if the barriers will largely be the costs of using it relative to existing centralized systems:
- uptime/accessibility over time of content : what how do users find content bookmarked two years ago if nodes are coming and going. Assuming there is a way to keep an updated bookmark list, what are the costs (effort, emotional etc) to the user to do that?
- costs of maintaining a node in the decentralized system. if my node maintains a catalog of 1000 or more videos what will be the operational costs (not just the storage and compute costs) to me of keeping this running.
These things are great to think of in context of of the recent HN post that discusses decentralized systems https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17361199
PS. I'm not saying that it's impossible to overcome those points - just that they're difficult and worth working through.
I wonder if the barriers will largely be the costs of using it relative to existing centralized systems:
- uptime/accessibility over time of content : what how do users find content bookmarked two years ago if nodes are coming and going. Assuming there is a way to keep an updated bookmark list, what are the costs (effort, emotional etc) to the user to do that?
- costs of maintaining a node in the decentralized system. if my node maintains a catalog of 1000 or more videos what will be the operational costs (not just the storage and compute costs) to me of keeping this running.
These things are great to think of in context of of the recent HN post that discusses decentralized systems https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17361199
PS. I'm not saying that it's impossible to overcome those points - just that they're difficult and worth working through.
People pay for seedboxes all the time. If libtorrent adds webtorrent support I can see these seedboxes being repurposed to host webtorrent videos. As a seedbox owner you would just add your favorite channel's rss feed to the auto download.
thanks for that - I'm a little embarrassed to say I didn't even know what a seedbox was until now.
It uses BitTorrent to scale, so it must do so. This is so that your instance wouldn't go down if your video blows up. I consider this a tradeoff worth making, do you have a better solution?
Seed torrents you haven't watched to obscure what you are actually watching.
[deleted]
> this allows for anyone to track the content viewing history of IPs
Is that worse than only Google being able to do it?
Is that worse than only Google being able to do it?
Considering that Google is a subset of anyone, I have to assume that it is.
If you consider Google being able to track something as a negative, then Google+n would be at last +n negative.
If you consider Google being able to track something as a negative, then Google+n would be at last +n negative.
Also tracking the viewing history of an IP is not that easy. People trying to do this can be easily spotted by the trackers.
There's an up-and-coming decentralized project called Force Network that has a method to obfuscate the ip of both the consumer and the host, and a mechanism to make it extremely censorship-resistant.
From the lightpaper presented, it seems to me, it's just tor with cryptocurrency. Am I misreading it and would you be so kind as to provide an executive summary why would one choose Force over good ole Tor?
See also https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/685 for discussion on implementing webtorrent over i2p
Technically it's to provide an opt-out switch in the interface. It's being developped and will land in the stable.
This shouldn't be an opt out, it should be the default. Most won't understand the ramifications of not opting out.
Breaks the distribution and cost model. You either need to join the swarm or pay to watch the video from a CDN. There is a cost to deliver bits, it's just been hidden from you by corporations subsidizing it. Therefore, it can't be default (although a modal could be provided that informed you prior to streaming and gave you the chance to bail out).
They used to make you pay extra for a static IP, but Comcast basically gives me a static IP for free now... I have to spoof my router's MAC address to get a new IP... I guess if you do that weekly, it is not such a huge privacy issue...
We could discuss the possible workarounds for this, but let's not forget that in terms of privacy, Youtube has its own by-design flaws as well. The company gathers much precise data about viewers than Peertube does.
Exposing your IP address to the public is much more risky than exposing it to Google.
I don’t think that’s a verbatim claim you can just make and expect everyone to agree with without any form of argument.
Counter-argument one: things known by Google represents another dose of data into a single place which accumulates way too much of it already.
If I watch something on a peertube, many may know that my IP streamed that, but they don’t know who I am because they’re not an all knowing internet-scale privacy-violator. Best of all, google won’t know I watched it at all, so it won’t be another annoying data-point in the super-aggressive youtube bubble.
Counter-argument one: things known by Google represents another dose of data into a single place which accumulates way too much of it already.
If I watch something on a peertube, many may know that my IP streamed that, but they don’t know who I am because they’re not an all knowing internet-scale privacy-violator. Best of all, google won’t know I watched it at all, so it won’t be another annoying data-point in the super-aggressive youtube bubble.
> Best of all, google won’t know I watched it at all
Why do you think that? It would be very easy for Google to observe who is viewing PeerTube videos and to link that back to those people's YouTube profiles. You may trust them not to, but if you do, it seems you're half way to thinking it's OK for them to know.
Why do you think that? It would be very easy for Google to observe who is viewing PeerTube videos and to link that back to those people's YouTube profiles. You may trust them not to, but if you do, it seems you're half way to thinking it's OK for them to know.
> It would be very easy for Google to observe who is viewing PeerTube videos
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I wouldn't assume they would go out of their way to monitor this, just like I wouldn't assume they're monitoring public IPs of torrents in the process of downloading.
Yes. It would be easy. But why would they?
Speaking in BT-terms... Peertube's might find this peeking annoying and start publishing "peerguardian" like lists to prevent Google-spying.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I wouldn't assume they would go out of their way to monitor this, just like I wouldn't assume they're monitoring public IPs of torrents in the process of downloading.
Yes. It would be easy. But why would they?
Speaking in BT-terms... Peertube's might find this peeking annoying and start publishing "peerguardian" like lists to prevent Google-spying.
[deleted]
Well it's kind of like driving a car with plates. It can identify you, but there's only so much risk.
You can also deactivate WebRTC and get a direct HTTP streaming fallback.
Would a VPN help in that regard?
Sure, or Tor. Anything that hides your IP.
Although IIRC there are gotchas specifically around webrtc sometimes bypassing VPNs if not configured exactly right.
I don't care. Amd people can VPN.
There is a crowdfunding going on. It already reached its goal. But there is a second goal at 45K. 11 days to go. Please help!
https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
Are you involved with the project? Have they explored any EU grants that may be available for open source and creative development?
While not for the EU... If anyone in the USA is looking for grants checkout http://interkn.com to search for them based on keywords.
No, I'm not involved. Can't tell you unfortunately.
No worries, I will get in touch with the non-profit responsible for PeerTube.
How do they solve the torrent liability problem?
My understanding is that if you download something via torrent, you are also uploading/distributing, and as I understand it, that makes your liability rather higher if the content happens to be illegal - you are not just in trouble for downloading/possessing said content, but you are also in trouble for distribution of said content.
I thought this was a big part of the rise of 'tube sites' for questionable content.
My understanding is that if you download something via torrent, you are also uploading/distributing, and as I understand it, that makes your liability rather higher if the content happens to be illegal - you are not just in trouble for downloading/possessing said content, but you are also in trouble for distribution of said content.
I thought this was a big part of the rise of 'tube sites' for questionable content.
This seems to focus alot on being a youtube alternative.
But for someone looking as something similar to youtube but locked down and only for friends and family it's a bit unclear whether this is appropriate (since so much is focused on sharing the content with other servers).
Also, for such a use case the torrent-functionality seems like a real downside but I can't find out if you can disable it serverside so that clients don't have to bother with it.
But for someone looking as something similar to youtube but locked down and only for friends and family it's a bit unclear whether this is appropriate (since so much is focused on sharing the content with other servers).
Also, for such a use case the torrent-functionality seems like a real downside but I can't find out if you can disable it serverside so that clients don't have to bother with it.
PeerTube initially aims precisely at being a Youtube alternative, which is why such questions are not tackled in the article I guess. However federation with other servers is totally controlled by admin-defined rules, so you can make a “private” instance. I'm not sure whether making videos watchable by logged-in users only is already possible but it's a very easy thing to implement.
As for the torrenting, if videos are only available to members it shouldn't be a privacy problem. That being said, disabling it will probably be a possibility in v1.0.
As for the torrenting, if videos are only available to members it shouldn't be a privacy problem. That being said, disabling it will probably be a possibility in v1.0.
Thanks, yeah but it's hard to find these answers at the project site as well.
The privacy problem wasn't my concern. But rather a bloated javascript client as well as the issue of accidentally seeding on a mobile connection wasting bandwidth and battery life. I see tons of potential issues but no possible gains at all when server bandwidth is not an issue.
The privacy problem wasn't my concern. But rather a bloated javascript client as well as the issue of accidentally seeding on a mobile connection wasting bandwidth and battery life. I see tons of potential issues but no possible gains at all when server bandwidth is not an issue.
If your instance does not use HTTPS, it can't follow other peertube instances and vice versa. You can also close registration. However, the videos are still public.
If you don't mind that other instances might mirror your videos, you can run a regular instance and simply not follow any other instances. Only your local videos will show up on your instance, but your videos might show up on other people's instances (if they choose to follow you).
The server is always seeding the videos, so the torrenting part only really kicks in if you have multiple people watching the same video at the same time. If your browser can't use webrtc, it will stream the video like a regular video. I think there is no option to disable the torrent functionality yet, but there is a github issue for it.
If you don't mind that other instances might mirror your videos, you can run a regular instance and simply not follow any other instances. Only your local videos will show up on your instance, but your videos might show up on other people's instances (if they choose to follow you).
The server is always seeding the videos, so the torrenting part only really kicks in if you have multiple people watching the same video at the same time. If your browser can't use webrtc, it will stream the video like a regular video. I think there is no option to disable the torrent functionality yet, but there is a github issue for it.
Something like that was exactly what I was afraid of and that certainly is a dealbreaker.
These are private videos (though nothing necessarily embarrassing or inappropriate) and making them public must not be possible from a client point of view (other than downloading and manually uploading to a different service).
These are private videos (though nothing necessarily embarrassing or inappropriate) and making them public must not be possible from a client point of view (other than downloading and manually uploading to a different service).
I just checked the upload settings. Actually there is a 'private' visibility setting for videos (and 'unlisted'), but I'm not sure how it works and who specifically can see private videos. Peertube is still in early stages right now and lots of features are still missing.
If it's just for friends and family why not setup a plex server?
Or Nextcloud as well.
Plex has a weird centralization of accounts that frankly disgusts me. In combination of a closed source solution makes it even worse. I chose Emby instead. But both Emby and Plex (as well as nextcloud) are poor youtube alternatives in my eyes - at least for the scenario I'm thinking of.
Neither (correct me if I'm wrong) allows for comments for instance, and have a cumbersome interface for youtube-like watching and discovering.
Neither (correct me if I'm wrong) allows for comments for instance, and have a cumbersome interface for youtube-like watching and discovering.
Mediagoblin is another option, but as far as I know just like Peertube I don't think you can restrict content to registered users yet. For a family setup easy to solve though by putting the entire site behind some form of authentication.
Yeah, but that's like 10 seconds of editing htaccess or whatever for HTTP simple auth.
Use MediaGoblin then?
The problem that peer tube can not solve is the youtube suggestions and stability.
- As a business I will link to a youtube video but not a PT video because I know YT will stay up.
- Most YT's views are from recommendations and related videos.
PT can't compete against that. Just can't. Especially since YT will never recommend a PT video. This is why a single source wins. :(
- As a business I will link to a youtube video but not a PT video because I know YT will stay up.
- Most YT's views are from recommendations and related videos.
PT can't compete against that. Just can't. Especially since YT will never recommend a PT video. This is why a single source wins. :(
Peertube has other advantages, among which interoperability. A relevant quote from the main developer:
“Where it gets really, really exciting, is that when you respond to a video status on Mastodon, the message will be sent to the instance of PeerTube. Your response will thus be visible beneath the video, in the comment space. And yes, if another person at the other end of the world responds to your comment via their instance of PeerTube or Mastodon, you’ll see it as a response to your status in Mastodon. If tomorrow Diaspora (the Facebook alternative behind Framasphere) implements ActivityPub, it will work in the same way. We’ll have plenty of platforms that are capable of federating comments.
Free alternatives are criticized, often rightly, for not having added value compared to centralized platforms. With ActivityPub, we now have our first big advantage. Because on the centralized platforms, you’ll have a hard time viewing, under your YouTube video, the reactions of people who commented on Facebook, Twitter, etc. ”
source: https://medium.com/@chocobozzz/peertube-a-federated-video-st...
“Where it gets really, really exciting, is that when you respond to a video status on Mastodon, the message will be sent to the instance of PeerTube. Your response will thus be visible beneath the video, in the comment space. And yes, if another person at the other end of the world responds to your comment via their instance of PeerTube or Mastodon, you’ll see it as a response to your status in Mastodon. If tomorrow Diaspora (the Facebook alternative behind Framasphere) implements ActivityPub, it will work in the same way. We’ll have plenty of platforms that are capable of federating comments.
Free alternatives are criticized, often rightly, for not having added value compared to centralized platforms. With ActivityPub, we now have our first big advantage. Because on the centralized platforms, you’ll have a hard time viewing, under your YouTube video, the reactions of people who commented on Facebook, Twitter, etc. ”
source: https://medium.com/@chocobozzz/peertube-a-federated-video-st...
> Because on the centralized platforms, you’ll have a hard time viewing, under your YouTube video, the reactions of people who commented on Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I consider it an advantage to not have those comments. Context matters. Signal to noise ratio on Facebook is close to 0 for most things that are open to everyone. Specialized subreddits have a good SNR. HN can too. Probably closed Facebook groups do as well.
And context matters. The discussion about a Blender tutorial will be different if posted to a group of beginners than if a group of professionals were to comment on it. If I want to help people learn Blender I can seek out beginners and help them in their groups, but when I am not looking to spend time helping beginners I’d rather not have every comment by every person wondering about every little detail show up.
I consider it an advantage to not have those comments. Context matters. Signal to noise ratio on Facebook is close to 0 for most things that are open to everyone. Specialized subreddits have a good SNR. HN can too. Probably closed Facebook groups do as well.
And context matters. The discussion about a Blender tutorial will be different if posted to a group of beginners than if a group of professionals were to comment on it. If I want to help people learn Blender I can seek out beginners and help them in their groups, but when I am not looking to spend time helping beginners I’d rather not have every comment by every person wondering about every little detail show up.
It's not really a problem. Pleroma for example already offers ways you can filter out certain platforms from communicating with you (or do transforms on messages like adding Subject lines or hiding the message body behind a button).
PeerTube could do the same; hide content you don't want to see below your videos or maybe whitelist certain places to allow commenting from them.
PeerTube could do the same; hide content you don't want to see below your videos or maybe whitelist certain places to allow commenting from them.
That sounds like a job for filters, which could be provided by browser extensions, userscripts, or forks of the platform hosted on other sites.
Question: how does moderation work in ActivityPub?
There is no notion of moderation in ActivityPub itself AFAIK, but I suppose you're asking what happens to e.g. comments that have been sent to federated servers/software and then deleted on the original platform.
In general, when that happens the comment is removed on the host platform, then a deletion request is sent to the federated platforms. There is no guarantee that other platforms will delete the content (although if they don't, they are generally considered malicious and should be reported), much like deleted forum posts can be viewed through WebArchive.
In general, when that happens the comment is removed on the host platform, then a deletion request is sent to the federated platforms. There is no guarantee that other platforms will delete the content (although if they don't, they are generally considered malicious and should be reported), much like deleted forum posts can be viewed through WebArchive.
Given the general quality of YouTube comments, this is a bug, not a feature.
> - As a business I will link to a youtube video but not a PT video because I know YT will stay up.
So you never stumbled upon a news or blog post (or playlist) containing an embedded video thats now "no longer available due to copyright issues", "switched to private", "not available for your country", "deleted by the user", ...?
Happens about once a week to me. Thats why I started to "backup" my playlists with youtube-dl.
So you never stumbled upon a news or blog post (or playlist) containing an embedded video thats now "no longer available due to copyright issues", "switched to private", "not available for your country", "deleted by the user", ...?
Happens about once a week to me. Thats why I started to "backup" my playlists with youtube-dl.
When I feel like some mindless entertainment I'll hit r/documentaries. I prefer YT links because I know it's reliable. I tend not to follow links to other sites because they tend to be spammy. If PT establishes itself as something that will just play the content I asked for without being spammy then I'll give it a click even if its CDN isn't as good as Google.
For me it comes down to the content I view on Youtube being available exclusively on Youtube.
Critical analysis of media is my jam, this kind of content is niche compared to the stuff that pulls a billion views on YT.
I'll happily comb through PT but I doubt it can fill my bottomless hunger for this kind of content.
Critical analysis of media is my jam, this kind of content is niche compared to the stuff that pulls a billion views on YT.
I'll happily comb through PT but I doubt it can fill my bottomless hunger for this kind of content.
Iunno, many "businesses" have sudden changes in policy and then decide to delete much of history with no consideration of its impacts.
* Reddit deciding to erase/ban subreddits with any drug theme, among others.
* Newspapers delete their comments sections, not just going forward, but forever in the past.
* Image hosters decide to ban hotlinking or go subscription-only. Since I drive a 200X car, this is a pain when many of the guides posted onto forums are basically useless.
With Youtube demonetizing videos (often useful but low-volume How-to videos that nobody would subscribe to), that's another nail in the coffin for them continuing to host video that can't earn them revenue.
* Reddit deciding to erase/ban subreddits with any drug theme, among others.
* Newspapers delete their comments sections, not just going forward, but forever in the past.
* Image hosters decide to ban hotlinking or go subscription-only. Since I drive a 200X car, this is a pain when many of the guides posted onto forums are basically useless.
With Youtube demonetizing videos (often useful but low-volume How-to videos that nobody would subscribe to), that's another nail in the coffin for them continuing to host video that can't earn them revenue.
If PeerTube instances are federated, and video metadata is publicly available, anyone can compete to offer a portal to PeerTube.
As a business, it is shortsighted to prefer link to a YT video that can be removed or deleted just as easily as a PeerTube video. My YT playlists are littered with deleted or otherwise removed videos. The only way to ensure a video you link to never disappears is to rip it and host it yourself.
As a business, it is shortsighted to prefer link to a YT video that can be removed or deleted just as easily as a PeerTube video. My YT playlists are littered with deleted or otherwise removed videos. The only way to ensure a video you link to never disappears is to rip it and host it yourself.
>PT can't compete against that
Good, because it's not a competitor. It's an alternative, and there's plenty of space for alternatives to exist. Not everything has to be a direct competition; It's ok for YouTube to exist, and it's ok for PeerTube to exist too.
Good, because it's not a competitor. It's an alternative, and there's plenty of space for alternatives to exist. Not everything has to be a direct competition; It's ok for YouTube to exist, and it's ok for PeerTube to exist too.
I routinely find linked YouTube videos that have been removed, sometimes with no indication as to why.
Of all YouTube feats you pick suggestions? On my side they tend to be terrible
I've been using it for a couple of days, and I've gotta say I'm impressed at the high quality of the service, and the integration with Activity Feeds (e.g. Mastodon) elsewhere.
Any peertubers here doing let's plays?
I have some on youtube, but it's just a hobby and I don't monetise it, but because of that I have a feeling that it's being scored lower in the youtube ranks.
However I have not seen any dedicated let's play peertube hubs and most only have a tiny allotment of upload space. There is one with unlimited, https://peertube.social/, however I'm not confident that it will stay that way and I'm not sure how happy they would be if I started uploading terrabytes of video.
Does anyone know of hubs specifically for this sort of content?
I have some on youtube, but it's just a hobby and I don't monetise it, but because of that I have a feeling that it's being scored lower in the youtube ranks.
However I have not seen any dedicated let's play peertube hubs and most only have a tiny allotment of upload space. There is one with unlimited, https://peertube.social/, however I'm not confident that it will stay that way and I'm not sure how happy they would be if I started uploading terrabytes of video.
Does anyone know of hubs specifically for this sort of content?
There is https://videos.lecygnenoir.info/about - you can contact him on https://miaou.drycat.fr/@lecygnenoirgame
Not sure he still has slots open though
Not sure he still has slots open though
I'll check it out.
Seems to be a bit french though for the moment and I'm not that well spoken in french :)
That brings another thing to mind, I tend to output stuff from Kdenlive with CRF 12 which results in quite high bitrate for 1080p (~25 mbit). Youtube just eats up the video files and transcodes them to all kinds of resolutions, but it also trashes the quality.
I wonder how peertube deals with that. Guess I can set up a local instance and test a bit first :)
Seems to be a bit french though for the moment and I'm not that well spoken in french :)
That brings another thing to mind, I tend to output stuff from Kdenlive with CRF 12 which results in quite high bitrate for 1080p (~25 mbit). Youtube just eats up the video files and transcodes them to all kinds of resolutions, but it also trashes the quality.
I wonder how peertube deals with that. Guess I can set up a local instance and test a bit first :)
Anyone with exp using peertube for product videos on a small-ish scale? Is it worth having all those extra features?
I'm soon starting to create videos for my startup and peertube is certainly what I am thinking about, besides just hosting the mp4 files directly.
I'm soon starting to create videos for my startup and peertube is certainly what I am thinking about, besides just hosting the mp4 files directly.
I built a system for people in similar situations... iSpooge Live, working on first easy release, seeking flexible early adopters.
Self hosted, designed for RasPi/non-cloud DCs w Docker, now running on AWS. Tools are all CLI static gen, to serve from CDN. I self host a “video platforms compared” video and other demos, with VideoJS player. Contact info in profile if you wanna chat more... my goal is hands-off SDK.
Self hosted, designed for RasPi/non-cloud DCs w Docker, now running on AWS. Tools are all CLI static gen, to serve from CDN. I self host a “video platforms compared” video and other demos, with VideoJS player. Contact info in profile if you wanna chat more... my goal is hands-off SDK.
What happens when someone uploads child porn?
The uploader will be banned and their content removed, and hopefully will have to deal with the police.
If a PeerTube instance is too laxist about its moderation policy, other instances will stop federating (federation is opt-in and decided by the admins).
So how can they call it "censorship resistant" if you can just ban users and delete their content?
The platform is censorship resistant. Individual instances are not. If you upload something to a specific instance, you are at the mercy of the instance owner. But you can upload to other more "open-minded" instances or host your own.
Moderation is necessary, otherwise you'll attract "undesirables" that will most likely scare away regular users.
Moderation is necessary, otherwise you'll attract "undesirables" that will most likely scare away regular users.
Check out the "Who is responsible for content published on PeerTube? " bit in the faq at https://joinpeertube.org/en/faq/
Banning and choosing not to point at something are two different things.
or copyrighted material. this could open up peers to civil infringement suits from the MAFIAA which could have a chilling effect on new participants.
If the country the instance is hosted in has illegalized child porn (japan for example allows some forms of child porn and it's normal to consume those), then the instance will likely take it down fairly quickly. If they don't they might be unfederated by other instances that definitely don't want this.
It's censorship resistant because each instance is an island and yet every island is connected. As long as someone is willing to host your content, people on the fediverse can consume it one way or another.
It's censorship resistant because each instance is an island and yet every island is connected. As long as someone is willing to host your content, people on the fediverse can consume it one way or another.
The person responsible for that PeerTube instance would have to remove it, and hopefully ban the user and report them to the authorities.
[deleted]
I can't see how this could be a youtube alternative without ads. Ads are how youtubers survive and make videos full time.
[deleted]
How is this better than bitchute?
Resistant
In the article PeerTube is presented as a YouTube alternative. I don't see how this can be the case if I have host the videos and pay all the costs that come with it.
Only if you want to be in control of your videos and don't want to use your audience's personal data as a payment to Youtube.
You can also host them on a PeerTube instance run by someone you trust (several non-profits already maintain one).
You can also host them on a PeerTube instance run by someone you trust (several non-profits already maintain one).
You have to do that anyways, when you want to host content. Uploading something to youtube is the opposite of 'hosting content'.
Not showing your videos because you don't want to contribute financially to the for profit platform you chose to host them on is not censorship.
Of course you're right, but it's also right to say that it's shitty when the for profit platform has more money than many small countries and insists that everyone must show their ads all the time. The money that the for profit platform makes comes from taking an obscene amount of data from its users and selling it to the companies that want to advertise.
We haven't even discussed whether the money that the for profit platform pays the content creators that drive traffic to its advertising engine is proportionate or fair. There's no discussion of this anywhere, really, since the for profit platform is so powerful that some people are literally afraid to criticize them in public. And let's not even broach the subject of whether the for profit platform might be using its users' data for things other than advertising. That would be really beyond the pale conspiracy theory type paranoia.
But you're right. It's not censorship. Only the government can do that.
We haven't even discussed whether the money that the for profit platform pays the content creators that drive traffic to its advertising engine is proportionate or fair. There's no discussion of this anywhere, really, since the for profit platform is so powerful that some people are literally afraid to criticize them in public. And let's not even broach the subject of whether the for profit platform might be using its users' data for things other than advertising. That would be really beyond the pale conspiracy theory type paranoia.
But you're right. It's not censorship. Only the government can do that.
Without advertising revenue, what incentive do many of these content creators have to participate? These alternative systems are unsustainable.
Many don't primarily rely on YouTube advertising revenue (especially since YT has become fairly aggressive in excluding videos from monetization anyways). Sponsored content, in-video advertising, Patreon etc. all are revenue sources that don't rely on the platform providing advertising.
I thought the majority of the complains on Youtube were more about demonetization rather than content removal. PeerTube is solving the latter, but that doesn't help most people who are upset that they are making less money since the adpocalypse.
True, but if YT doesn't provide reliable ad revenue there's less reason to only put your content on YouTube. And with general unhappiness with the platform comes a desire for having at least a backup plan, so why not start posting in multiple locations now?
If by "backup plan", you mean your videos being accessible, sure. But usually, when people talk about diversifying, they are talking about revenue. In this case, PeerTube isn't really bringing revenue so I'm not sure it helps much. What would help is getting a Patreon or streaming on Twitch. Those are different sources of income, PeerTube isn't really unless you get hit like Blender did.
Blender and OCW weren't monetizing their channels on YouTube... Some people just want to share their content. Not everyone is in it for the money.
Blender receives millions of dollars in donation and OCW is backed my MIT which gets billions of dollars in revenue. How is that comparable to starting creators who want to build a career? Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube.
> Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube.
Maybe you missed the news, but Blender had all their videos blocked for several days.
Maybe you missed the news, but Blender had all their videos blocked for several days.
[deleted](1)
YouTube started without advertising revenue too.
I understand that doesn't help current creators but the problem YouTube competitors have right now seems to be a cycle of trying to match features, run out of money, shut down
My theory is any site with a chance of toppling YouTube needs to avoid trying to topple YouTube directly and rather recreate its rise to the top
I understand that doesn't help current creators but the problem YouTube competitors have right now seems to be a cycle of trying to match features, run out of money, shut down
My theory is any site with a chance of toppling YouTube needs to avoid trying to topple YouTube directly and rather recreate its rise to the top
I still hold the opinion that YouTube didn't win because of the social features we think of now - it won because in 2005, it was the only video player that always did something when you hit the Play button. That was it.
Definitely agree on the technical front.
Vimeo was around first and focused on 1080/HD content, and had actual enforcement of community guidelines that accounts should only be uploading content they made or took part in. YouTube (pre-Google) was gaining massive popularity with South Park and other TV content chopped into 12 minute segments to get past then-current restrictions for length. Vimeo was a better experience for community, but YouTube was a better experience for audience desires.
(I work for Google Cloud but opinions are sure my own)
Vimeo was around first and focused on 1080/HD content, and had actual enforcement of community guidelines that accounts should only be uploading content they made or took part in. YouTube (pre-Google) was gaining massive popularity with South Park and other TV content chopped into 12 minute segments to get past then-current restrictions for length. Vimeo was a better experience for community, but YouTube was a better experience for audience desires.
(I work for Google Cloud but opinions are sure my own)
Yes and what I mean was that the next one to have any chance of winning will be the one that stops trying to win. YouTube already exists and has features a startup can't compete with.
It's like trying to compete with Amazon on price and delivery speed, you're going to run out of money before you make a dent.
Look at Twitch for example, it's keeping its head in the game by starting out so different YouTube is now trying to keep up with it
It's like trying to compete with Amazon on price and delivery speed, you're going to run out of money before you make a dent.
Look at Twitch for example, it's keeping its head in the game by starting out so different YouTube is now trying to keep up with it
0. https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/316