5 ms·

I still cannot grasp how supposedly tech literate HN users can't seem to understand the purpose of PeerTube. Do you have a company and do you want to self host

I still cannot grasp how supposedly tech literate HN users can't seem to understand the purpose of PeerTube. Do you have a company and do you want to self host your promotional videos? Make a PeerTube instance and embed them in your website. Do you have a conference and want to self host the recordings? Same Do you have an institution of any kind and want to self host the video material? Same. Nowhere it's touted as a rival to youtube in the popularity sense, just like you wouldn't call WordPress a rival to Twitter. And before the objections come: yes you can self host videos already, but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth so you can run with minimal costs?

proactivesvcs 3y ago
Relatedly, Mastodon is a) too hard for me to sign up for and b) a failed experiment. That the former was being repeated by people here still makes me chuckle.
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  https://mastodon.social/auth/sign_up https://mastodon.social/auth/sign_up here you go
Klonoar 3y ago
> but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth so you can run with minimal costs? If TFA is to be believed, not PeerTube. ;P > We needed to settle a technical debt : v6 removes support for WebTorrent to focus on HLS. Both are technical bricks used to get peer-to-peer streaming in web browsers, but HLS is more fitted to what we are doing (and plan to do) with PeerTube
- georgyo 3y ago
  I did some testing of peertube a little over a year ago, and in practice you never used the webtorrent stuff anyway. The webtorrent always had a static http seed which is how videos played fast, but that web seed was usually more than capable of serving all the traffic. More so, it _must_ be capable of doing so because not all your clients will be able to support webtorrent effectively. In order to use a webtorrent, you needed someone else to be watching the same exact video as you at the same time, talk to the tracker, create a p2p connection, negotiate chunks and hope the other side has those chunks. This just never happened. Even when I tried to force ideal scenarios it was just too slow to be usable. I did some similar experiments with IPFS and results where much better but got worse every time I revisited the tests in the months after. Then protocol-labs completely scrapped all the libraries I was using and it doesn't work at all. At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it.
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    I would imagine the main use case to be as fallback in times of peak usage.
  - nisa 3y ago
    > At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it. It's not webbrowser based but live torrent streams like acestream work really very well. Unfortunatly acestream is pretty shady and closed-source and associated with malware distribution and illegal sport streaming - but it looks like a modified python bittornado implementation. Porting this to webtorrent would be interesting as it would at least allow to share the bandwidth for live-streams. I assume from a technical point of view this is not impossible. I'm not aware of any open source implementations for the browser.
  - treyd 3y ago
    > At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it. People really need to give up on the idea that the browser is a good foundation for robust p2p protocols. There's too many restrictions and the way users conventionally interact with web pages means that running instances of the client tend to be very ephemeral, even if you design it as an SPA. WebRTC kinda works as a transport but it's still a misapplication of the technology. What PeerTube should do now is have some kind of opt-in peering between instances to mirror each others videos and provide secondary sources to share the load, and then later build some kind of desktop client for user mirroring of content.
    - corobo 3y ago
      > What PeerTube should do now is have some kind of opt-in peering between instances to mirror each others videos and provide secondary sources to share the load They've had this bit for a while: https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#instances-redundancy https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#inst...
      - 3y ago
infecto 3y ago
I think because many of us are not big fans of fediverse. For all of those examples you provided I would rather just pay for an existing service rather than burn time running PeerTube. The fediverse projects are interesting and glad people enjoy them but they are still not made for the masses (which I suppose is to the liking of those that enjoy the fediverse.
- indigochill 3y ago
  > they are still not made for the masses (which I suppose is to the liking of those that enjoy the fediverse) I think more to the point, the fediverse is largely anti-commercial. You -can- advertise, but risk getting defederated if you do it in a way people disapprove of. And you -can- run a walled garden, but then what are you doing running a node that supports federation (this is one thing I'm still confused about with Threads, so I'm curious how that shakes out)? But the reason the web exploded (at least in my mental model) was because it evolved to support commerce, which then got businesses using it and users following to buy things online which was a lot more convenient than buying things in brick and mortar stores. So if the fediverse remains anti-commercial (which is the only version I'm interested in) then it will probably never get the kind of money that Web 1/2/3 has, since every evolution has been funded by commerce, so it will probably always stay niche. There are also legitimate usability challenges, too, though. I expect those will be solved eventually, but not soon since there's no money in it and money has always been an accelerator of technical development to the point people assume tech is fast because they're so used to the massive amounts of money being poured into tech. Even when they are solved, though, I still expect the fediverse to remain niche due to the lack of commercial opportunity (and I say that as a big fan of the fediverse - as you suppose, I think it's actually to its benefit that it to some extent undoes the Eternal September).
RHSeeger 3y ago
> Nowhere it's touted as a rival to youtube in the popularity sense, just like you wouldn't call WordPress a rival to Twitter. But I also wouldn't give it a name that, to the casual observer, makes it _sound_ like a rival to Twitter.
- glenstein 3y ago
  I think this speaks to the frustration that OP has which I also do, which is that the commentary has barely moved even a millimeter past first impressions. It's not in the form of any kind of principled objection to the project of building out the fediverse, any technical issue with the choice of technologies, or any affirmative argument in favor of the status quo where all this activity being captured by increasingly enshittified platforms. The motivations and the objectives are play are wrestling with important questions, and the peanut gallery thinks that talking about the first impression of the name counts as participating in that conversation, which is depressing.
- seydor 3y ago
  You mean a name like Tumblr
immibis 3y ago
Mastodon is called an alternative to Twitter.
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  And?
amelius 3y ago
It's because HN folks know that keeping a service running takes time and effort, and they can't believe that this is somehow a solved problem.
madeofpalk 3y ago
How likely is it that my company's promotional videos will be federated to the extent that it'll actually reduce my bandwidth cost by a non-trivial amount? Will hosting videos like this increase reliability or reduce it? I genuinely don't know - i've never used it - but it would be far from my first pick for this kind of stuff. > but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth so you can run with minimal costs? You mean apart from S3? https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/API_GetObjectTorrent.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/API_GetObjec... > Amazon S3 does not support the BitTorrent protocol in AWS Regions launched after May 30, 2016. oh.
- w8whut 3y ago
  beside that... using a hosted service doesn't quiet qualify as selfhosted either. And thats also ignoring the elephant in the room called pricing. egress is pretty expensive on AWS, you'd at least want to use their video streaming service instead of s3 for a consumer website.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Yep, using s3 to serve video streams is one of the worst things you can do to yourself. If you've got the money and need, Cloudflare Stream is pretty damn good.
KingOfCoders 3y ago
"Do you have a company and do you want to self host your promotional videos? Make a PeerTube instance and embed them in your website." If I'm a small company, I'd use something like BunnyCDN to stream my videos, because no one else will watch them so the benefits of Peertube are not there. If I'm a company and I'm large I should have no problems paying for something and again would use something like BunnyCDN.
- jraph 3y ago
  It isn't easy to handle playing videos just with a CDN. You have to handle: - the different formats because browsers support different stuff - different qualities because you have to respect bandwidth visitors' bandwidth - dynamic / adaptative quality - CSP stuff - nice UI for the video etc. At this point, PeerTube handles all this for you and it's easy to setup.
  - jasode 3y ago
    >It isn't easy to handle playing videos just with a CDN. You have to handle: [... various video delivery tasks...] I think gp's "BunnyCDN" was shorthand for the video-as-a-service Bunny Stream: https://bunny.net/stream/ https://bunny.net/stream/ That "turnkey" managed service from Bunny would be more feature-complete for businesses than self-hosting PeerTube.
    - KingOfCoders 3y ago
      +1 I should have made that clearer, thank you for filling in my gaps.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Most CDNs have services for that but also that stuff matters much less if you’re not Netflix or YouTube. A basic HTML5 video tag has better UI than half of the complicated players, H.264 at phone and desktop sizes will cover almost everyone, and you’ll be fine for most businesses, conferences, etc. You need to have a LOT of traffic before the money you’re paying for bandwidth is greater than the cost of screwing around with complex infrastructure, and unless you’re streaming live events at high resolution having a CDN serving cached content is going to be faster than messing around with dynamic quality or trying to provide dozens of codec / resolution / quality permutations.
WhitneyLand 3y ago
I think when you “cannot grasp how supposedly tech literate users can't seem to understand the purpose of” something, then sometimes you need to that as a signal and reevaluate.
- doublerabbit 3y ago
  Reevaluate what exactly? OPs not wrong. The newer crowds are so entwined with current CDNs/Stacks that their instant dismissal to a released product is wrong. It's common display that unless it's using some $cloud $lang its an instant dismissal of "You shouldn't do that, cloud/saas does this!" Nowadays folk don't understand the requirements of on-perm. The cloud aids but isn't a it-all.
  - WhitneyLand 3y ago
    I don’t mean to disparage the project or argue against on-prem, I’ve built and hosted too many servers for that. I meant to suggest maybe it’s useful, but more in a niche way. For example the growth in popularity has been steady but incremental.
sproketboy 3y ago
[dead]
halflings 3y ago
> Nowhere it's touted as a rival to youtube in the popularity sense, just like you wouldn't call WordPress a rival to Twitter. ... the first image on the article linked here shows a monster called "Videorapter" with YouTube, Vimeo and Twitch logos, and calls for donations to "help push back Videoraptor"?
twosdai 3y ago
Just to add to the noise. Tech literacy doesn't always translate into product or business literacy.
- loceng 3y ago
  Nor critical thinking ability.
Mindwipe 3y ago
> Do you have a company and do you want to self host your promotional videos? Make a PeerTube instance and embed them in your website. That video is likely to end up blocked by corporate users. If I'm a company I don't want to have my audience of potential customers looking things up on their lunch break reduced.
andsoitis 3y ago
> but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth Don't visitors need to watch the same videos at the same time for this benefit to materialize? If so, it seems unlikely for the examples you mention (promo videos, conference recordings) and so I don't know that that is an effective selling point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
surajrmal 3y ago
What is the incentive to self host when embedding YouTube videos is free and easy? Peer tube might make it easy but it adds a lot of maintenance complexity and server costs. Is the avoiding risk associated with YouTube over the video control worth that cost? For some maybe, but most I imagine not.
- neltnerb 3y ago
  I mean, I personally deleted every video I put on YouTube once they wanted to start putting ads into my media to monetize them when I put them up for people to see for free. Embedding youtube videos means tracking javascript for users, potentially ads for other companies showing up (if not now, later), it just doesn't seem sustainable. Peertube seems not so good because of the overhead of federating, but the upside of course is anyone on other services like Mastodon can just add comments... no need for yet another 3rd party vendor with their own tracking javascript to handle comment threads... and people can trivially share your video on other federated services. But it does have a lot of overhead if it's federating a lot.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > What is the incentive to self host when embedding YouTube videos is free and easy? If your videos include any of the verboten topics, then Youtube is not free and easy. Also they can change those topics at any time on a whim, and start retroactively removing/striking/banning. They'll drop a ban-hammer on you for multiple "violations". For example, imagine you wanted to discuss Covid 19 in any non-CDC approved way during 2020/2021? If you mentioned the Lab Leak Theory back when it was politically incorrect, or questioned the efficacy of cloth masks, your content was removed and you were given a strike. Your entire presence could be deleted, and by the time it turns out you were right (or at least possibly right), you're already disappeared. (ftr I am sympathetic to YT because I do think there needs to be some moderation. It's a hard problem and I don't have all the answers)
- rakoo 3y ago
  "Free (price) and easy" are not the values peertube is pushing forth, so it's not really relevant. Peertube makes it so you own your infrastructure, your data, and can do whatever you decide to do. You are not subject to foreign laws like with YouTube, you are not dependent on ads that are a problem by design, you are not beholden to ecocidal capitalism to display videos, you do not have to give more power to a company that employs children and refugees to build their AI. You are building a saner world just by not using YouTube. That's kinda hard to beat.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
babypuncher 3y ago
It doesn't help that their name heavily implies it is a P2P YouTube replacement. It also doesn't help that, at least outside HN, every thread I see complaining about YouTube has commenters telling everyone to switch to PeerTube.

proactivesvcs 3y ago

Relatedly, Mastodon is a) too hard for me to sign up for and b) a failed experiment. That the former was being repeated by people here still makes me chuckle.

dvngnt_ 3y ago
https://mastodon.social/auth/sign_up https://mastodon.social/auth/sign_up here you go

Klonoar 3y ago

> but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth so you can run with minimal costs? If TFA is to be believed, not PeerTube. ;P > We needed to settle a technical debt : v6 removes support for WebTorrent to focus on HLS. Both are technical bricks used to get peer-to-peer streaming in web browsers, but HLS is more fitted to what we are doing (and plan to do) with PeerTube

georgyo 3y ago
I did some testing of peertube a little over a year ago, and in practice you never used the webtorrent stuff anyway. The webtorrent always had a static http seed which is how videos played fast, but that web seed was usually more than capable of serving all the traffic. More so, it _must_ be capable of doing so because not all your clients will be able to support webtorrent effectively. In order to use a webtorrent, you needed someone else to be watching the same exact video as you at the same time, talk to the tracker, create a p2p connection, negotiate chunks and hope the other side has those chunks. This just never happened. Even when I tried to force ideal scenarios it was just too slow to be usable. I did some similar experiments with IPFS and results where much better but got worse every time I revisited the tests in the months after. Then protocol-labs completely scrapped all the libraries I was using and it doesn't work at all. At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  I would imagine the main use case to be as fallback in times of peak usage.
- nisa 3y ago
  > At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it. It's not webbrowser based but live torrent streams like acestream work really very well. Unfortunatly acestream is pretty shady and closed-source and associated with malware distribution and illegal sport streaming - but it looks like a modified python bittornado implementation. Porting this to webtorrent would be interesting as it would at least allow to share the bandwidth for live-streams. I assume from a technical point of view this is not impossible. I'm not aware of any open source implementations for the browser.
- treyd 3y ago
  > At the point I'm pretty uncertain if a p2p web browser video app can exist and be usable enough to have people actually want to use it. People really need to give up on the idea that the browser is a good foundation for robust p2p protocols. There's too many restrictions and the way users conventionally interact with web pages means that running instances of the client tend to be very ephemeral, even if you design it as an SPA. WebRTC kinda works as a transport but it's still a misapplication of the technology. What PeerTube should do now is have some kind of opt-in peering between instances to mirror each others videos and provide secondary sources to share the load, and then later build some kind of desktop client for user mirroring of content.
  - corobo 3y ago
    > What PeerTube should do now is have some kind of opt-in peering between instances to mirror each others videos and provide secondary sources to share the load They've had this bit for a while: https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#instances-redundancy https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin/following-instances#inst...
    - 3y ago

infecto 3y ago

I think because many of us are not big fans of fediverse. For all of those examples you provided I would rather just pay for an existing service rather than burn time running PeerTube. The fediverse projects are interesting and glad people enjoy them but they are still not made for the masses (which I suppose is to the liking of those that enjoy the fediverse.

indigochill 3y ago
> they are still not made for the masses (which I suppose is to the liking of those that enjoy the fediverse) I think more to the point, the fediverse is largely anti-commercial. You -can- advertise, but risk getting defederated if you do it in a way people disapprove of. And you -can- run a walled garden, but then what are you doing running a node that supports federation (this is one thing I'm still confused about with Threads, so I'm curious how that shakes out)? But the reason the web exploded (at least in my mental model) was because it evolved to support commerce, which then got businesses using it and users following to buy things online which was a lot more convenient than buying things in brick and mortar stores. So if the fediverse remains anti-commercial (which is the only version I'm interested in) then it will probably never get the kind of money that Web 1/2/3 has, since every evolution has been funded by commerce, so it will probably always stay niche. There are also legitimate usability challenges, too, though. I expect those will be solved eventually, but not soon since there's no money in it and money has always been an accelerator of technical development to the point people assume tech is fast because they're so used to the massive amounts of money being poured into tech. Even when they are solved, though, I still expect the fediverse to remain niche due to the lack of commercial opportunity (and I say that as a big fan of the fediverse - as you suppose, I think it's actually to its benefit that it to some extent undoes the Eternal September).

RHSeeger 3y ago

> Nowhere it's touted as a rival to youtube in the popularity sense, just like you wouldn't call WordPress a rival to Twitter. But I also wouldn't give it a name that, to the casual observer, makes it _sound_ like a rival to Twitter.

glenstein 3y ago
I think this speaks to the frustration that OP has which I also do, which is that the commentary has barely moved even a millimeter past first impressions. It's not in the form of any kind of principled objection to the project of building out the fediverse, any technical issue with the choice of technologies, or any affirmative argument in favor of the status quo where all this activity being captured by increasingly enshittified platforms. The motivations and the objectives are play are wrestling with important questions, and the peanut gallery thinks that talking about the first impression of the name counts as participating in that conversation, which is depressing.
seydor 3y ago
You mean a name like Tumblr

immibis 3y ago

Mastodon is called an alternative to Twitter.

Almondsetat 3y ago
And?

amelius 3y ago

It's because HN folks know that keeping a service running takes time and effort, and they can't believe that this is somehow a solved problem.

madeofpalk 3y ago

How likely is it that my company's promotional videos will be federated to the extent that it'll actually reduce my bandwidth cost by a non-trivial amount? Will hosting videos like this increase reliability or reduce it? I genuinely don't know - i've never used it - but it would be far from my first pick for this kind of stuff. > but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth so you can run with minimal costs? You mean apart from S3? https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/API_GetObjectTorrent.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/API_GetObjec... > Amazon S3 does not support the BitTorrent protocol in AWS Regions launched after May 30, 2016. oh.

w8whut 3y ago
beside that... using a hosted service doesn't quiet qualify as selfhosted either. And thats also ignoring the elephant in the room called pricing. egress is pretty expensive on AWS, you'd at least want to use their video streaming service instead of s3 for a consumer website.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Yep, using s3 to serve video streams is one of the worst things you can do to yourself. If you've got the money and need, Cloudflare Stream is pretty damn good.

KingOfCoders 3y ago

"Do you have a company and do you want to self host your promotional videos? Make a PeerTube instance and embed them in your website." If I'm a small company, I'd use something like BunnyCDN to stream my videos, because no one else will watch them so the benefits of Peertube are not there. If I'm a company and I'm large I should have no problems paying for something and again would use something like BunnyCDN.

jraph 3y ago
It isn't easy to handle playing videos just with a CDN. You have to handle: - the different formats because browsers support different stuff - different qualities because you have to respect bandwidth visitors' bandwidth - dynamic / adaptative quality - CSP stuff - nice UI for the video etc. At this point, PeerTube handles all this for you and it's easy to setup.
- jasode 3y ago
  >It isn't easy to handle playing videos just with a CDN. You have to handle: [... various video delivery tasks...] I think gp's "BunnyCDN" was shorthand for the video-as-a-service Bunny Stream: https://bunny.net/stream/ https://bunny.net/stream/ That "turnkey" managed service from Bunny would be more feature-complete for businesses than self-hosting PeerTube.
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    +1 I should have made that clearer, thank you for filling in my gaps.
- acdha 3y ago
  Most CDNs have services for that but also that stuff matters much less if you’re not Netflix or YouTube. A basic HTML5 video tag has better UI than half of the complicated players, H.264 at phone and desktop sizes will cover almost everyone, and you’ll be fine for most businesses, conferences, etc. You need to have a LOT of traffic before the money you’re paying for bandwidth is greater than the cost of screwing around with complex infrastructure, and unless you’re streaming live events at high resolution having a CDN serving cached content is going to be faster than messing around with dynamic quality or trying to provide dozens of codec / resolution / quality permutations.

WhitneyLand 3y ago

I think when you “cannot grasp how supposedly tech literate users can't seem to understand the purpose of” something, then sometimes you need to that as a signal and reevaluate.

doublerabbit 3y ago
Reevaluate what exactly? OPs not wrong. The newer crowds are so entwined with current CDNs/Stacks that their instant dismissal to a released product is wrong. It's common display that unless it's using some $cloud $lang its an instant dismissal of "You shouldn't do that, cloud/saas does this!" Nowadays folk don't understand the requirements of on-perm. The cloud aids but isn't a it-all.
- WhitneyLand 3y ago
  I don’t mean to disparage the project or argue against on-prem, I’ve built and hosted too many servers for that. I meant to suggest maybe it’s useful, but more in a niche way. For example the growth in popularity has been steady but incremental.

sproketboy 3y ago

[dead]

halflings 3y ago

> Nowhere it's touted as a rival to youtube in the popularity sense, just like you wouldn't call WordPress a rival to Twitter. ... the first image on the article linked here shows a monster called "Videorapter" with YouTube, Vimeo and Twitch logos, and calls for donations to "help push back Videoraptor"?

twosdai 3y ago

Just to add to the noise. Tech literacy doesn't always translate into product or business literacy.

loceng 3y ago
Nor critical thinking ability.

Mindwipe 3y ago

> Do you have a company and do you want to self host your promotional videos? Make a PeerTube instance and embed them in your website. That video is likely to end up blocked by corporate users. If I'm a company I don't want to have my audience of potential customers looking things up on their lunch break reduced.

andsoitis 3y ago

> but which platforms employ the power of the torrent protocol to distribute bandwidth Don't visitors need to watch the same videos at the same time for this benefit to materialize? If so, it seems unlikely for the examples you mention (promo videos, conference recordings) and so I don't know that that is an effective selling point.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

surajrmal 3y ago

What is the incentive to self host when embedding YouTube videos is free and easy? Peer tube might make it easy but it adds a lot of maintenance complexity and server costs. Is the avoiding risk associated with YouTube over the video control worth that cost? For some maybe, but most I imagine not.

neltnerb 3y ago
I mean, I personally deleted every video I put on YouTube once they wanted to start putting ads into my media to monetize them when I put them up for people to see for free. Embedding youtube videos means tracking javascript for users, potentially ads for other companies showing up (if not now, later), it just doesn't seem sustainable. Peertube seems not so good because of the overhead of federating, but the upside of course is anyone on other services like Mastodon can just add comments... no need for yet another 3rd party vendor with their own tracking javascript to handle comment threads... and people can trivially share your video on other federated services. But it does have a lot of overhead if it's federating a lot.
freedomben 3y ago
> What is the incentive to self host when embedding YouTube videos is free and easy? If your videos include any of the verboten topics, then Youtube is not free and easy. Also they can change those topics at any time on a whim, and start retroactively removing/striking/banning. They'll drop a ban-hammer on you for multiple "violations". For example, imagine you wanted to discuss Covid 19 in any non-CDC approved way during 2020/2021? If you mentioned the Lab Leak Theory back when it was politically incorrect, or questioned the efficacy of cloth masks, your content was removed and you were given a strike. Your entire presence could be deleted, and by the time it turns out you were right (or at least possibly right), you're already disappeared. (ftr I am sympathetic to YT because I do think there needs to be some moderation. It's a hard problem and I don't have all the answers)
rakoo 3y ago
"Free (price) and easy" are not the values peertube is pushing forth, so it's not really relevant. Peertube makes it so you own your infrastructure, your data, and can do whatever you decide to do. You are not subject to foreign laws like with YouTube, you are not dependent on ads that are a problem by design, you are not beholden to ecocidal capitalism to display videos, you do not have to give more power to a company that employs children and refugees to build their AI. You are building a saner world just by not using YouTube. That's kinda hard to beat.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

babypuncher 3y ago

It doesn't help that their name heavily implies it is a P2P YouTube replacement. It also doesn't help that, at least outside HN, every thread I see complaining about YouTube has commenters telling everyone to switch to PeerTube.