5 ms·

Peertube is interesting tech, and YouTube's de facto monopoly on video hosting is less than ideal. Especially considering that it's owned by the world's largest

Peertube is interesting tech, and YouTube's de facto monopoly on video hosting is less than ideal. Especially considering that it's owned by the world's largest attention harvesting operation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
legitster 5y ago
> de facto monopoly on video hosting How do people believe this is even remotely true? I have so many options to host videos, least of which is just housing itself on my own damn server! I don't know if the complaint here is that no one else will do it for me for free, or that no one else will just hand me viewers for free.
- sircastor 5y ago
  It’s not literally just hosting. That’s not that hard. It’s distribution, discovery, promotion, accessibility. Right now, if you want your video to be seen, you need to be on YouTube.
- MrGilbert 5y ago
  > I don't know if the complaint here is that no one else will do it for me for free, or that no one else will just hand me viewers for free. Devil's advocate: Which paid video-website with community created content the size similar to Youtube may I join? That's where the "de-facto" monopoly claim comes from, I guess.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > > de facto monopoly on video hosting > How do people believe this is even remotely true? I think if you add "...that people actually visit and watch", it's more accurate. Sure, I can host my own videos or put them on Vimeo or PeerTube - but YouTube is going to get me more eyeballs more quickly (assuming I play the promo games.)
- nsonha 5y ago
  They mean if you care about reaching wider audiences, we are aware of the various options to upload videos of those nights when you felt adventurous
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > I have so many options to host videos, least of which is just housing itself on my own damn server! Peertube is precisely about hosting videos on your "own damn server". Except Peertube is designed in a way that fellow instance operators can seed your content, and that clients viewing a specific videos will also seed it. This means your server can now serve video to more remote places, and will be more resilient to view peaks (a very small VPS with limited bandwidth can handle hundreds of parallel views). If you don't go the Peertube way, you are usually giving up on serving video to remote areas where you don't have good connectivity to, and crossing your fingers so that your videos don't become too popular. Or you end up building your own mirroring/CDN infrastructure like media.ccc.de and others do, but by then the costs and complexity are much higher than operating a Peertube instance.
Razengan 5y ago
> world's largest attention harvesting operation. I don’t think Facebook owns YouTube :)
- nsonha 5y ago
  Facebook is nothing comparing to Google, they have an OS and a browser remember?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Razengan 5y ago
    But how does Google “harvest attention?”
    - wiether 5y ago
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ads https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ads
      - nsonha 5y ago
        I believe the distinction they are trying to make, if any, is harvesting attention vs harvesting information. Fair enough, while Google as a whole is more on harvesting information (I would say Facebook too), Youtube employs a bunch of dark patterns to make users remain on the site. At the end of the day, they go hand in hand, those ads need to be served.
    - nsonha 5y ago
      oh dear

Peertube is interesting tech, and YouTube's de facto monopoly on video hosting is less than ideal. Especially considering that it's owned by the world's largest attention harvesting operation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

legitster 5y ago

> de facto monopoly on video hosting How do people believe this is even remotely true? I have so many options to host videos, least of which is just housing itself on my own damn server! I don't know if the complaint here is that no one else will do it for me for free, or that no one else will just hand me viewers for free.

sircastor 5y ago
It’s not literally just hosting. That’s not that hard. It’s distribution, discovery, promotion, accessibility. Right now, if you want your video to be seen, you need to be on YouTube.
MrGilbert 5y ago
> I don't know if the complaint here is that no one else will do it for me for free, or that no one else will just hand me viewers for free. Devil's advocate: Which paid video-website with community created content the size similar to Youtube may I join? That's where the "de-facto" monopoly claim comes from, I guess.
zimpenfish 5y ago
> > de facto monopoly on video hosting > How do people believe this is even remotely true? I think if you add "...that people actually visit and watch", it's more accurate. Sure, I can host my own videos or put them on Vimeo or PeerTube - but YouTube is going to get me more eyeballs more quickly (assuming I play the promo games.)
nsonha 5y ago
They mean if you care about reaching wider audiences, we are aware of the various options to upload videos of those nights when you felt adventurous
southerntofu 5y ago
> I have so many options to host videos, least of which is just housing itself on my own damn server! Peertube is precisely about hosting videos on your "own damn server". Except Peertube is designed in a way that fellow instance operators can seed your content, and that clients viewing a specific videos will also seed it. This means your server can now serve video to more remote places, and will be more resilient to view peaks (a very small VPS with limited bandwidth can handle hundreds of parallel views). If you don't go the Peertube way, you are usually giving up on serving video to remote areas where you don't have good connectivity to, and crossing your fingers so that your videos don't become too popular. Or you end up building your own mirroring/CDN infrastructure like media.ccc.de and others do, but by then the costs and complexity are much higher than operating a Peertube instance.

Razengan 5y ago

> world's largest attention harvesting operation. I don’t think Facebook owns YouTube :)

nsonha 5y ago
Facebook is nothing comparing to Google, they have an OS and a browser remember?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Razengan 5y ago
  But how does Google “harvest attention?”
  - wiether 5y ago
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ads https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ads
    - nsonha 5y ago
      I believe the distinction they are trying to make, if any, is harvesting attention vs harvesting information. Fair enough, while Google as a whole is more on harvesting information (I would say Facebook too), Youtube employs a bunch of dark patterns to make users remain on the site. At the end of the day, they go hand in hand, those ads need to be served.
  - nsonha 5y ago
    oh dear