brisk comments on YouTube might slow down your videos if you block ads

Who pays for the servers? Because if even big platforms like Signal sometimes struggle to pay the bills, in part because they spend a lot on their servers, then it’ll be dozens of times worse with video hosting

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Content creators. It's hard to host everyone's videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It's not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.

Signal makes it's own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks "who pays for the servers" when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FireIced@lemmy.super.ynh.fr 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted).

Do you really expect more than even 5% of all youtube channels to do it? You have high hopes.

compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers

I believe it's done in a kinda P2P way? Didn't really check, but wouldn't that just not work with NAT internet connections, which many people have because that's just more secure this way? Also, bad for privacy.

Using a TURN server would also add huge costs so it's basically like hosting your own server

Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

I don't so I wouldn't, but if I was, I would be wondering, as I always do. Anyways, I believe XMPP doesn't store stuff and only transmits, and Matrix doesn't store things forever (and doesn't store videos like YT), and the main instance is funded by donations, and smaller instances are just pretty small and have media wiped when needed

it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary

That's the POV of people in !technology@lemmy.world or selfhosted. Most people can't be bothered with this shit and are pretty tech illiterate. Some don't want to waste even a minute. And that's the case of the very vast majority of people on the internet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 point 1 year ago

Just to be clear before I respond to the rest of this comment, my position is that Peertube solves the sustainability problem and in no way am I suggesting Peertube will replace YouTube

I do not expect the vast majority of channels to survive the end of YouTube, as is normal for any paradigm shift.

P2P is completely achievable using NAT Hole Punching. I have no clarity on if Peertube is doing this but since there's already a trusted server involved it would be silly not to.

In a hypothetical, unlikely future where YouTube dies and people generally move to Peertube, I expect the majority of content creators to pay small fees to have instances host their videos. I expect small, free but restricted instances will continue to be the home for amateur videographers as they are today. The more technical folk will likely self host, and groups of like minded creators will pool efforts to run group specialist instances (not unlike Nebula).

Frankly the most likely scenario is YouTube dies and everyone starts posting videos to Instagram or Tiktok or something equivalently anti user.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent