11 ms·
That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. If we want good content
by zelphirkalt 5y ago
That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model.
If we want good content und independence from YouTube, perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month, to uphold our freedom. One rented server can easily support many users, each of those can chip in to finance renting the server. It can be done transparently, so that users always know what they are paying for and how much is covered already for the month. It is time to learn, that we need to support what we like financially, so that people can actually live from providing us with it. As long as we do not do so, people can only provide us with their creations by generating revenue in other ways.
- mattl 5y agoHow do we get good content from a platform that is explicitly copyleft? Will the vast majority of creators use this even as a backup?
- zelphirkalt 5y agoWhy would copyleft have anything to do with the quality of content people upload? I am not quite following the connection there.
- mattl 5y agoMost people don’t care about the license of a place to put their videos
- detaro 5y agoThen why did you bring it up at all?
- mattl 5y agoIt’s literally all over the Peertube homepage
- Weryj 5y agoThe license of the source code doesn't apply to the content hosted.
- mattl 5y agoI know. But people who cares about the server code care more about such things. I made a copyleft movie and the PeerTube site I put it on went down forever. YouTube and archive.org remain up
- joshuaissac 5y ago> But people who cares about the server code care more about such things. I made a copyleft movie and the PeerTube site I put it on went down forever. What does the have to do with the licence of the PeerTube source code?
- the_third_wave 5y ago> How do we get good content from a platform that is explicitly copyleft? The same way we get good software from a ´community´ which is explicitly copyleft. > Will the vast majority of creators use this even as a backup? The best way to use platforms like Peertube and Odysee is by using it as a primary source, with Youtube and Vimeo essentially playing the role of CDN. Should the censors not like your video for $reasons they can block them 'till they turn ultraviolet but they can not deny anyone access to them. Make sure to advertise your alternative distribution channel(s), use the same channel names and video titles so they can be found through regular web search and you're set [1]. [1] that it, until censorship reaches the network layer
- mattl 5y agoI think that’s a bad idea because I don’t want people to think watching video on a computer is okay. Video (movies) should be enjoyed on a big screen with a good screen. These platforms should give creators a way to prohibit viewing on small screens, Linux, etc.
- MathCodeLove 5y agoIs this satire?
- 8eye 5y agosounds like my film prof at uni
- midasuni 5y agoWhy does absolute size matter? Viewing angle is surely far more important, with something made for THX being optimised for 40° And as for blocking the most popular video playing platform out there - at least for large screens - the only question would be “why”
- tomxor 5y ago> That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. This is the answer to so much of what's wrong with the modern web. We need less business and to get more communities back into the center of the web... it should be even easier today since IaaS is so much cheaper, I think it's just a focus problem, nothing is relevant to the big sites that act as the lens to the web unless it's directly pumping money somewhere.
- judge2020 5y agoA large amount of small creators do this today only because YouTube is a free service. A lot of people will use their free time to make videos, but not if a portion of their disposable income has to be dedicated to hosting them.
- gabereiser 5y agoTime is never free my friend. There’s always a cost model at play.
- browningstreet 5y agoSo much goodness out there exists in spite of this. Local model railroad clubs is one that comes to mind. I’d rather that than Walmart, which has mastered its cost model.
- gabereiser 5y agoYes. Time invested given for free at the expense of other endeavors. I’m not arguing against doing any of these things. Just simply stating that time = money. I’d rather spend my money/time on model railroad building too. z scale ftw.
- adwn 5y agoFor most people, the time/money tradeoff isn't very flexible. Only few have the choice of working fewer hours for less money, while even fewer have the choice of working more hours for more money.
- prvc 5y agoOne could also post chunks of videos to a channel on an existing (corporate) video platform in an obscured form, such that they survive transcoding, and reconstitute them in the client. For example, invert the Pr channel, and reverse audio frames (realistically, do something better). There's your free CDN, provided by a legacy video platform in a way which (at least conceivably, if one properly tailors his approach) does not violate their ToS.
- southerntofu 5y agoI'd be curious how much data you could store for free on Youtube given some clever steganography.
- zelphirkalt 5y agoMight only take a few people noticing and reporting it, until your account gets blocked or something.
- southerntofu 5y agoHow would they notice? I'm not suggesting to publish "random noise" videos, but maybe to make abstract art video/music that could "hide" the information?
- MonaroVXR 5y agoWhat about Nebula or curiousitystream?
- Finnucane 5y agoThose are commercial alternatives, with curated content. So creators can get paid directly from the subscription income. Clearly it serves a somewhat different community than the fediverse. Personally, that seems okay. There should be room for both things to exist.
- CharlesW 5y ago> That's the thing: It doesn't have to pay off and it doesn't have to generate revenue. That's not its goal. It is not a business model. From a purely-technical lens, that may not seem like a fatal flaw. When viewed through a whole-product lens, it is. PeerTube's anonymous, censor-proof nature is enough to attract a certain class of content that repels advertisers, but then what? Until the dark side of distributed technologies is addressed instead of touted as a feature, this doesn't have a chance of popular success.
- hsuduebc2 5y agoWell. Wikipedia did.
- foxfluff 5y agoWikipedia is not distributed, anonymous, or censor-proof.
- southerntofu 5y agoPeertube is closer to MediaWiki than Wikipedia. Anyone can setup an instance, and scrap/share content from other instances using URLs. Nothing is distributed, anonymous or censorship-proof... but the entire network is federated and pseudonymous.
- kragen 5y agoWikipedia is widely mirrored, pseudonymous for writers, anonymous for readers (unlike YouTube!), possessed of internal policies against most kinds of censorship, and quite practically inconvenient to censor externally. Certainly you could do better on these axes, but Wikipedia is already getting an enormous amount of vital information to people despite other people wanting to suppress that information.
- dude187 5y agoThe censorship on Wikipedia is internal. Biased articles locked from public editing, delete hungry maintainers that gatekeep content away from the site. Sure some countries can block it, but the subtle internal censorship is far more damaging because it's easy for people to overlook/write off
- notatoad 5y ago>perhaps it is time to see, that it might cost us a tiny bit of money each month that's still "generating revenue". maybe not profit, but servers and bandwidth cost non-trivial amounts of money and somebody has to pay for that. whether it's donations, or user-fees, or ads, or private benefactors, the revenue has to come from somewhere. but if a video service has no answer as to how it can sustain itself, it's questionable whether it's worth the effort of developing it or developing your audience on it.
- phkahler 5y agoUse your unused upstream bandwidth. Like bit torrent for video.
- chii 5y agoSo why not just make the video available on torrent? It's even possible to streamline the experience for torrents like how Popcorntime has done. Users don't need to even be technical enough to understand what torrents are - the same way users don't need to understand tcp/ip to visit a website.
- southerntofu 5y agoBittorrent protocol is not supported in browsers. Peertube uses Webtorrent, which is a WebRTC port of the Bittorrent protocol. Those two networks are incompatible but the magnet hashes are the same and there is progress in desktop clients implementing Webtorrent peering. You can try to think of Peertube as Popcorn Time with user following and channels and comments... and interop with the rest of the Fediverse.
- ogsalman 5y agoi absolutely love this answer, and we need more people who think like this. props to you friend. much love, and much support. lets spread awareness to these poisoned minds.