124
YouTube --> PeerTube Next? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by tvmole@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@beehaw.org
182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So Elon gutted Twitter, and people jumped ship to Mastodon. Now spez did... you know... and we're on Lemmy and Kbin. Can we have a YouTube to PeerTube exodus next? With the whole ad-pocalypse over there, seems like Google is itching for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] F4stL4ne@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

YouTube has a bunch of issues:

1/ climate change:

  • A big centralised server needs lots of power, of cooling, a big pipe for upload/download,
  • algorithms, metrics, content id, big size imagery (4k), all this is really needing a bunch of energy in itself to run,
  • advertising in general is an ecological nightmare.

2/ monetisation:

  • content id is a gamble for creators. A video can be demonetised for the dumbest reasons under the pretext of copyright infringement,
  • no one knows how the algorithm works, it means one video can be suggested to a lot of people and the next one won't. So income is randomised,
  • the purpose of monetisation for content creators exist to legitimate the advertising and the monetisation of user's personal data's. Not the other way around. YouTube is not a platform made to retribute creators.

Going on Peertube could mostly fix every ecological problems for the lost of the uncertainty of the monetisation system.

Plus there is a psychological weigh on creators that goes with the monetisation and algorithm of YouTube.

[-] Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How would a distributed system be more efficient? That is very counter intuitive. In addition the question would be who pays for PeerTube. Because unlike Mastodon or Lemmy and the likes, storing large amounts of video files is actually damn expensive.

[-] F4stL4ne@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure the average successful YouTube content creators can invest in one computer to host his own content on peertube. For start that's all what is needed.

Video storage is a false problem, creators already store their content locally (to not lose the work if there is any issue).

On the technical side, others have answer that question here but in short:

  • decentralised with peer to peer means that the more a video is shared the more it will be available, even with small size pipes (when I'm watching your content, others can watch it through me),
  • you don't have to pay for hudge and hardware so less money wasted, but it needs a strong network of pipes, which can improve internet navigation as a all,
  • instances are nodes of a network, if one fails the others stays up,
  • better scalability cause p2p,
  • peertube can run on rather old tech so I'd say it's more efficient.

I will need more precise questions for better answers.

[-] Rakn@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My assumption was based on the idea to have a proper YouTube replacement. Not some run down video storage for a hand full of large content creators that can afford it.

  • The scalability you buy via P2P also means an increased storage. So if you want to offer a similar platform that is used in a similar way then you probably would need a multiple of the current storage capacity that YouTube offers. Likely close to an exabyte of storage (assuming that YouTube has just about 300 petabytes. Which likely is a lower number by now.)
  • Especially for the amount of users consuming the content you would need a good distribution factor. Popular content would need to be distribution over thousands of peers for it to kinda work out. So a lot of people could share the necessary video data, making the storage a problem.
  • Big servers in a datacenter will always be more efficient because they are designed to be compared to consumer hardware. It's like replacing a central power plant with a small power plant per home. It won't deliver the same efficiency and is a waste of resources. Ecologically speaking.

creators already store their content locally

A lot of creators delete at least the raw footage because they don't have enough space and it would be too expensive. One creator hosting their own content wouldn't even begin to scale in such a scenario. They would need powerful hardware and serious network connectivity. Something the large creators probably could afford, but most couldn't.

peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.

Especially old tech is less efficient than current generations.

tl;dr: I think you were talking about a small solution for large content creators where as I took it as a literal replacement for YouTube.

load more comments (16 replies)
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
124 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
381 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org