[HN Gopher] Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]
Author : x14km2d
Score : 218 points
Date : 2021-09-19 16:53 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (diode.zone)
(TXT) w3m dump (diode.zone)
| jstx1 wrote:
| I was wondering who they were and why they were self-saboting.
| Then I saw that it's a channel with 20 subscribers on youtube
| with view numbers in the single digits for some videos. So
| somebody went from not being watched on youtube, to not being
| watched on peertube.
|
| How did this even make it to the front page?
| uuddlrlr wrote:
| 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]
| legitster wrote:
| > 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.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| > > 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 wrote:
| 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
| sircastor wrote:
| 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.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _world 's largest attention harvesting operation._
|
| I don't think Facebook owns YouTube :)
| nsonha wrote:
| Facebook is nothing comparing to Google, they have an OS
| and a browser remember?
| rastafang wrote:
| Every little bits count
| mdoms wrote:
| This forum will launch anything decentralized or federated onto
| the front page.
| rapnie wrote:
| I would guess that is because of high levels of interest in
| decentralized / federated web technologies then. In any case
| I am with that crowd too.
| 3gg wrote:
| The points made in the video are valid regardless of how many
| viewers their channel has.
| [deleted]
| parasanti wrote:
| Before you think of how awful this site is, remember youtube in
| the beginning as well. This could be a great alternative,
| especially if they don't remove people without a good
| explanation, sell your personal info or try to sway an opinion.
| test542 wrote:
| If you want PeerTube to become popular, make it easier for people
| to upload videos. At the moment it's too confusing and
| complicated; no content creator cares what "instance" means and
| they never will. No one who creates an account and finds that
| "uploads are not allowed on this instance" or encounters some
| similar problem is going to waste any more time trying to use it.
| If you leave it the way it is now, it's always just gonna be by
| nerds for nerds. And more people are going to be enslaved by Big
| Brother who controls YouTube. So please make it accessible to
| normal people.
| amelius wrote:
| See also why PGP failed.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Why don't we just use BitTorrent for videos? Popcorn time works
| reasonably well and we don't need a social layer, there are
| already plenty of them. I d like to see everything that i like
| being seeded with care by its owners
| new_guy wrote:
| Because people don't care about the actual videos, it's the
| social aspect drives these sites. You could upload a video of
| paint drying and get an active comment thread going on some
| sites.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Maybe. But you can have that even if YouTube was just a
| frontend for torrents. I care about some of the videos, eg
| lectures interesting conferences etc,
| slim wrote:
| Popcorntime does not have channels unfortunately
| Popegaf wrote:
| It does use Webtorrent by default (it can be turned off).
| kebman wrote:
| How does it measure up to LBRY / Odysee?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video
| distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer
| tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any
| revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and
| seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is
| the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that
| the entire thing mostly seems to attract people who get banned
| from anything else so the content isn't even going to attract
| advertisers.
| soheil wrote:
| Perhaps efficiency shouldn't be the thing we optimize for in
| this case. If you look at the internet it's extremely
| inefficient, there are millions of DNS servers all kind of have
| semi recent information about domains. There are millions of
| websites mainly hosted on extremely inefficient servers. There
| are millions of images and other assets mainly compressed less
| than they should be wasting tons of bandwidth. Yet here we are,
| the internet works and it works great. It'd be a sad day if
| someone argued that we should abandon all this and give the
| keys to someone like Google? Because it'd be more efficient?
| Screw that!
| belorn wrote:
| There are people who like running their own linux server with
| their own hardware. Occasionally those people are also
| interesting in creating videos or have friends/family that are.
|
| There are also people who get funded through sites like
| patreon, who might not care too much for youtube advertisement
| or YT freemium. Sometimes you even see youtube personalities
| switching to twitch or other platforms just in order to escape
| youtube and do legal activity which is just close to impossible
| on youtube. There is an endless stream of youtube videos
| complaing about youtube copyright system and how it makes their
| job close to impossible in some cases. Game reviews and movie
| reviews are two areas almost dominated by the issue of false
| copyright claims, which has forced some creators to abandon the
| platform as a revenue sources.
|
| There is even float plane which was designed from the ground to
| solve the youtube problem, created by a company that fully
| relied on youtube for its existence. If your company existence
| is depended on a free service provided by someone else, you
| might want to reconsider how safe you should feel. PeerTube
| might serve a similar purpose.
|
| On top of that we have scientists who might want to know that
| their research isn't taken down because of false copyright
| claims or fleeting politics. A company that has linked
| instruction videos in their books/teaching material might want
| to be sure that links still work 10 years from now. Activists
| might want to avoid the risk that their documentation doesn't
| go dark from a political requests or false claim. Police
| brutality victims might want to be sure that the copyrighted
| music playing in the background, placed there intentionally to
| get copyright claims, does not stop them from uploading videos.
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| And yet, torrents are still a thing.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| because people want to download illegal movies and porn, or
| host linux isos as a service for the commons. There's
| practically no commercial activity around torrents because
| it's an incredibly inefficient way to serve large amounts of
| data.
| zuminator wrote:
| Legal or not, the fact that many people host and share
| dozens of large torrents from their home servers for free
| belies the claim that sharing video would necessarily be
| too expensive to be practical or would devolve back to turn
| off the century RealVideo quality.
| gtirloni wrote:
| How's it inefficient?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| because decentralized systems need to redundantly store
| data, a lot. Youtube accounts for, depending on the
| source 15% of global internet traffic.
|
| The reason you can watch videos at 1080p wherever you are
| in the world buffer free is because the system is
| ridiculously optimized, cached locally, and so on. Do you
| want to go back to 180p because one of the two guys
| hosting that five year old video with 50k views you liked
| just went offline?
| gtirloni wrote:
| Your second paragraph disproves your first, do you
| realize that? Youtube caches locally in a decentralized
| fashion, with redundant data, etc.
| pacifist wrote:
| Why would you want advertisers? Advertisers are part of the
| problem.
| cirenehc wrote:
| A significant portion of content creators do it as a full
| time job. Ads is a stable revenue stream for these content
| creators. You as a consumer are free to move to any
| decentralized video platform you like, but the main
| bottleneck for any significant shift in market share depends
| on content creators, and ultimately, on advertisers.
| jcims wrote:
| How much would I have to pay to replace the revenue that a
| content creater would get from my eyeball traffic on
| YouTube? From what I'm reading it's less than a penny per
| video. I send about $30/mo to Patreon, that's enough for
| what, 3000 videos? I watch YouTube way too much, but I
| don't watch it that much.
|
| Realistically I should be aiming to replace Google's
| revenue for my eyeball traffic, because that covers all of
| the costs as well. Still seems very doable.
|
| It would be nice if Patreon partnered up with them and
| handled the transactions.
| themacguffinman wrote:
| Realistically, every PeerTube viewer would also need to
| pay for the thousands or more viewers any creator will
| lose by forcing viewers to pay money and by moving to a
| niche platform with worse UX and no serious discovery.
| criley2 wrote:
| People expecting content for free is the Original Sin.
| Advertisers are just a side effect of peoples unwillingness
| to pay for their content.
| milkytron wrote:
| People expect content for free because advertising has
| allowed it. It didn't start that way.
| criley2 wrote:
| I mean, radio and TV were free OTA for decades. I don't
| know what you want to call the "start" of content, but
| ad-supported free models have been around for a very long
| time.
| iamstupidsimple wrote:
| You'll have a hard time convincing any creator to cut off a
| revenue source like ads for ideological reasons.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| How 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 wrote:
| Why would copyleft have anything to do with the quality of
| content people upload? I am not quite following the
| connection there.
| mattl wrote:
| Most people don't care about the license of a place to
| put their videos
| detaro wrote:
| Then why did you bring it up at all?
| mattl wrote:
| It's literally all over the Peertube homepage
| Weryj wrote:
| The license of the source code doesn't apply to the
| content hosted.
| mattl wrote:
| I 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
| the_third_wave wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| I 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.
| tomxor wrote:
| > 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.
| tinyhouse wrote:
| "exploited by ads". Well, YouTube needs to make money somehow. If
| you don't want ads you can pay a monthly fee like Netflix.
| LightG wrote:
| True, but as a typical user, I wish they'd just be straight up
| about it.
|
| Basically, it's user experience degradation until you're forced
| to sign up.
|
| How about trying to just reach out and offer a service without
| killing my current experience?
|
| I pay for other subscriptions so this isn't a money thing, but
| I won't for youtube on principle. They ruined that platform.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| They're probably still tracking me even though I pay right?
| hortense wrote:
| You can turn your history off if you want, but then you'll
| get suggestions of videos you've already watched.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I've noticed and turned it back on tbh, but does it
| actually mean they're not tracking me? They're already
| tracking me all over the web
| 3gg wrote:
| Youtube forcing a subscription on everybody would be self-
| sabotage. Their existence and ability to make profits rests
| entirely on ads. And while the ads could be more ethical, they
| choose instead to track people in every possible way,
| exploiting their identity and fingerprint on the platform --
| and outside the platform -- for maximum profit. So the ads are
| not a choice, but the soul of the product. Peertube, instead,
| does not exist to make profits.
|
| So yes, exploited by ads.
| chairhairair wrote:
| The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more
| than a couple thousand total YouTube views.
|
| The trending page on PeerTube shows a list of videos with at most
| a few dozen views.
|
| Is PeerTube supremely unpopular (seems to have been launched
| several years ago: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube), or am I
| missing something? Does it really have an order of magnitude more
| Github stars (https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube) than daily
| viewers?
| freshthought wrote:
| Perhaps the most notable fact is how upvoted this article is.
| Shows you how much people want to believe, maybe?
| mraudiobook_com wrote:
| Yes. Amazingly very few seemsl to care about decentralizing the
| web and monitary systems.
|
| Arguably the most important invention since the internet itself
| ALL the big companies have huge incentive to kill the movement
| because they can't make money off it.
| supermatt wrote:
| Peertube is really just an "app" providing a simple way to host
| and publish your content online outside the control of
| "service" providers that can also easily be accessed and shared
| by the "fediverse" (in this case activitypub supporting
| federated networks of servers and end users).
|
| You can consume peertube content with any activitypub client
| that supports its types. In short, peertube is an accessible
| way for users to publish their videos to activitypub.
| rapnie wrote:
| Yes, Owncast [0] is another example of a media app that is in
| the process of adding ActivityPub protocol support [1] and
| become part of the Fediverse. I hope they'll be largely
| compatible in the way they implemented their federation
| support.
|
| [0] https://owncast.online/
|
| [1] https://github.com/owncast/owncast/tree/gek/activity-
| pub-1
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no
| more than a couple thousand total YouTube views.
|
| ...that's quite a lot even on YouTube, no? I always assumed the
| videos recommended for their sheer popularity were a "top 1%"
| sort of situation.
| spiderice wrote:
| No, this is nowhere near a lot, even for small channels. Make
| a quality video about something useful and there is a good
| chance you get more views than this persons whole channel
| Timpy wrote:
| Maybe the idea of PeerTube is a lot nice than the user
| experience? I can't say, I haven't tried PeerTube. I feel like
| this is pretty common when it comes to avoiding big tech
| though. When Github was bought out by Microsoft I went all in
| on Gitlab, but alas, the company I work for now uses Github.
| The sheer gravity of it pulled me back in.
| maccolgan wrote:
| The experience is fine, but PeerTube by definition is
| decentralized, so measurements won't always be indicative of
| usefulness...
| 3gg wrote:
| What exactly is your point? That it's inferior technology
| because it's unpopular?
| judge2020 wrote:
| A lot of people see the usefulness of PeerTube but don't move
| because the creators they watch are on YouTube. It's the same
| for the creators, though - they can't move off of YouTube
| entirely, because none of their viewers will go to a PeerTube
| instance just to watch that one creator. Thus nobody moves to
| PT unless there are other factors (like extremist creators
| moving because their videos keep getting removed by YT).
|
| Another major problem that prevents creators from hosting on
| PeerTube is that there are no ads - many see direct-from-
| YouTube revenue driven by Premium views/Ad views generate a
| significant portion of their income. Even Linus Tech Tips, with
| their audience of gamers who mostly running an ad blocker, sees
| YouTube generate 26% of their profit[0], almost exactly as much
| as they get from sponsors spots in their videos. If everyone
| were to move to PT, we'd either need an intermediary for ads,
| or only creators with audiences that could afford to personally
| finance them (via Patreon or similar) would be able to survive
| and make a living off of running their channel.
|
| 0: https://youtu.be/-zt57TWkTF4?t=391
| merth wrote:
| just upload same videos to both platforms, people will come
| slowly.
| spijdar wrote:
| This is my big pet peeve with people who describe Youtube's
| demonetization policies as "censorship" and propose Peertube
| as a replacement. I'm not going to get entangled in the
| question of what responsibility big social media has and what
| it should or shouldn't do about giving people platforms, but
| I will say that if you believe demonetization and being de-
| prioritized in youtube's discovery algorithms is being
| deplatformed/censored, moving to a service that doesn't
| really _have_ monetization or youtube-style content discovery
| isn 't the solution.
|
| If you move your content to PeerTube and want both an
| audience and to be paid, you'll need a combination of third
| party services and other social media, and will likely end up
| with similar problems re: advertisers cutting out
| "unacceptable content".
|
| I do think it'd probably be better if the content provider
| was divested from this layer and focused on only providing
| media, but Peertube doesn't really solve these
| social/economic problems people complain about with Youtube.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| One way people could start is by uploading content on both,
| Youtube and a PeerTube instance and mention their PeerTube
| content in YouTube videos. This way they also create a kind
| of online backup, in case YouTube's algorithms decide to
| take them down.
| belorn wrote:
| If I am remembering right from linus tech tips, they are
| not allowed to try get viewers to go to an other
| platform. The are some ways one can indirect reference
| other platforms, but videos intended to get people off
| youtube is basically not allowed.
| hendersoon wrote:
| Linus and co founded Floatplane, which is explicitly
| another platform competing with YouTube. It isn't very
| successful, but they certainly did it.
|
| https://www.floatplane.com/
| dvdkon wrote:
| Wasnt't that Twitch? They talk about Floatplane on YT
| often enough.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Oh my, I did not even know that. That's so toxic.
| Shouldn't that fall under some kind of monopoly law?
| spijdar wrote:
| There are a number of prominent YouTubers who advertise
| their own alternative platforms fairly regularly, if
| "indirectly". There are also videos about LTT's own video
| service Floatplane on YouTube [0]
|
| I'm guessing that either there's some clause in the
| YouTube partner/adsense program saying you can't just
| redirect your viewers elsewhere or you can't upload
| videos with the sole purpose of saying "go here for more
| videos".
|
| That said, I'd be interested to see the details of what
| GP was talking about, because I believe it exists, I just
| wonder what the exacts are.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/oOOOfZWXPu4
| ngold wrote:
| Only folks that can sustain themselves, like forgotten
| weapons, are patreon supported. But you would have to create
| a channel from the beginning to be patreon supported.
| kbenson wrote:
| It's not that you have to create the channel from the
| beginning to be Patreon supported, but that you have to be
| willing to forego the additional YouTube revenue even if
| Patreon payment s become enough to support you.
| tomComb wrote:
| "It's the same for the creators, though - they can't move off
| of YouTube entirely, because none of their viewers will go to
| a PeerTube instance just to watch that one creator."
|
| Is it so hard to be on both? Something I like about YouTube
| compared to some other platforms is they never (to the best
| of my knowledge) engage in exclusives or impose exclusivity
| conditions. And even when they develop new features, I've
| rarely seen Google try to restrict those.
| rapnie wrote:
| > Is PeerTube supremely unpopular (...), or am I missing
| something?
|
| One reason of seeming more inpopular than it actually is, lies
| in that while there are many PeerTube instances, they are not
| all federating together. They are selective and some are not
| federating at all.
|
| Also I am not sure if counting of views works all that well
| yet, and Likes require either signing up to individual
| instances, or spreading of video link via Mastodon to get liked
| (via ActivityPub integration).
|
| Both the federation and the level of integration with other
| Fediverse apps is a work in progress and steadily improving.
| Animats wrote:
| PeerTube does not have enough bandwidth to work.
|
| Try PeerTube. Here's a cat video. Posted 1 week ago, 38 views,
| duration 10 seconds.
|
| https://peertube.tv/w/tsvCimhEaLSTZD16B3gqBQ
|
| Even as the only watcher, and with gigabit Internet both ways at
| my end, it stuttered, then stalled completely.
|
| For short videos, you'd be better off putting them on a shared
| hosting site as .mp4 files.
|
| Peer to peer video hosting is just not a good idea for bandwidth
| reasons.
| Popegaf wrote:
| It's not P2P, it's federated. Anybody can host an instance and
| probably that one has low bandwidth and isn't mirrored by other
| instances.
|
| Instances like https://tilvids.com/ or https://video.ploud.fr/
| have better bandwidth.
| rapnie wrote:
| It also depends a lot on the remote instance, which can be
| someone's personal PC on a low-bandwidth line. It sure helps if
| there's more people seeding via the webtorrent integration. I
| guess the latter will be more of a benefit once PeerTube
| instances get more active users.
| Animats wrote:
| It's working better now, with 144 views. Do more views cause
| more replication?
| rapnie wrote:
| I believe it is more simultaneous viewers that counts, and
| they start to upload as well as download while watching
| (and you can also opt-out of that).
| ziml77 wrote:
| Same experience here on that video.
| sebastien_b wrote:
| Ran fine for me first time.
| yawaramin wrote:
| Worked fine for me with maybe one stutter. Anyway, that's once
| instance of PT, there are others. E.g. I've never noticed any
| issues with https://watch.ocaml.org/
| echlipse wrote:
| Both the videos referenced above worked smoothly for me. I'm
| on a 30 mbps cable Internet connection.
| rnotaro wrote:
| I guess it depends on the peers.
|
| I have 600 down and it was still choppy on the first load.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| What really interests me is, how I can host a PeerTube instance,
| without getting into all sorts of responsibility issues, like
| people uploading videos containing illegal stuff (upload filter
| laws). I would love to give my server something to do, but with
| the current law, I simply do not want to be responsible for what
| people upload and spread via my instance and my server. Does
| PeerTube offer me a way of reviewing videos before they can be
| found and a way of telling people, that they are responsible
| themselves and have that accepted by law? And how do other
| instance admins manage this? Does anyone here have that
| experience?
| dartharva wrote:
| Odysee is functionally a much better Youtube alternative than
| Peertube. Too bad it mostly acts like the Youtube equivalent of
| Parler now.
| criley2 wrote:
| The primary motivation of most creators is to make money. What is
| PeerTube paying per view? 0$?
|
| Why would any creator spend all that time and money making
| content to give away for free? Do you give away your daily work
| for free? They can easily use something like Patreon or one of
| the many pay-only tube sites if they're giving up on ads and
| asking for donations/subscriptions/etc.
|
| I mean, I'm not against the idea, it just seems to fundamentally
| misunderstand why creators choose youtube. If Youtube paid
| $0/1000 views... the majority of the top 1000 creators would be
| gone overnight.
| paulirish wrote:
| The submission links to 4:19 into the video, probably
| unintentionally?
|
| Sadly peertube seems to have to buffer from the beginning to play
| from this position.
| hendersoon wrote:
| I like that they let users disable uploads.
|
| How do you get rid of the giant left column, other than zooming
| way in?
| aledalgrande wrote:
| lol buffering on a 100Mb
| mattl wrote:
| Poor to poor
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Considering it's being hit by Hacker News, I'd say that's not
| that bad.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| If it's peer to peer, shouldn't more viewers be better?
| Popegaf wrote:
| It depends on the configuration of the server. Some disable
| Webtorrent (probably because it doesn't support HLS). When
| they do that then I think it pulls from the federation,
| which then depends on how many have mirrored it.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I didn't know it pulled from the federation at all!
| That's interesting.
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| Off topic, but the other day I switched to FreeTube (freetube.io)
| and it's been quite nice. It's not a comprehensive YouTube client
| (lacks true theming, plugins, etc.), it offers a lot of features
| that will be helpful for people who want to use YouTube without
| Google getting in the way.
| varispeed wrote:
| When using such federated platforms, do you leak your IP address
| to other people viewing the content?
| Popegaf wrote:
| If WebRTC is activated in your browser and webtorrent
| (https://webtorrent.io/) is being used by the instance, yes.
| However, you could say the same for Zoom or most video calling
| platform, if I'm not mistaken.
| whitefirered wrote:
| I like these types of video websites, but a huge reason they will
| never beat YouTube is the age. YouTube has a huge abundance of
| content that spans pretty far back. When you have that much
| content its kinda hard to beat.
| osigurdson wrote:
| Step 1: Change the name.
| prvc wrote:
| Does distributed hosting really work for streaming video,
| especially along "the long tail"?
| petermcneeley wrote:
| Why is the upload bytes always zero for me? (I would guess they
| dont do NAT holepunch)
| 3gg wrote:
| I was wondering the same thing. Looks like the videos are
| shared using WebRTC, which I have disabled in my browser.
| Popegaf wrote:
| WebTorrent (https://webtorrent.io/) is built upon WebRTC, but
| I believe PeerTube should fallback to simple HTTP mp4. There
| is a download link handy that you can open in the browser,
| vlc, mpv or your favorite video player.
|
| https://diode.zone/download/streaming-
| playlists/hls/videos/b...
| mattl wrote:
| There's no peertube app for my devices --- I'm not going to watch
| YouTube on my computer
| mattl wrote:
| Followed the link and clicked play and it stopped after one
| second.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| One thing I really dislike about Fediverse services is that their
| landing pages are always about joining/signing up. For Twitter-
| like applications this might be ok. But for something like
| YouTube, I definitely want to browse the content a bit before
| signing up.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _One thing I really dislike about Fediverse services is that
| their landing pages are always about joining /signing up._
|
| That's because their "landing pages" (project advertisement
| websites) aren't instances. The home page of any instance (e.g.
| https://diode.zone/) will show you the content visible from
| that instance.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| This isn't true of Mastodon or Pixelfed instances (or wasn't
| when I tried running one).
|
| But, if you're going to be called "join peertube" you need to
| have the sort of content that makes people want to join: copy
| about what peertube is + a list of instances isn't that.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Most Mastodon instances have it a single click away from
| the sign-up page. (But yes, I agree. Mastodon isn't great,
| even though it's popular.)
| FalconSensei wrote:
| For many people 1 click (or even an entire screen scroll-
| down) is too much. If PeerTube is supposed to be an
| YouTube alternative, you need to see videos and a search
| right away.
|
| I know it's not an instance and blah-blah-blah, but those
| are technical details that (possible) users don't give a
| single F.
| gargron wrote:
| I've just opened the YouTube frontpage from a private window to
| see what it's like. There is literally nothing on there I'd
| want to click on. I think the value of YouTube is in 1) being
| able to link to a video 2) subscribing to creators and having
| them in your feed and 3) related videos. But none of that is
| the kind of browsing around you can do from the frontpage.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-19 23:00 UTC)