Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Are Trying Out PeerTube

boilingsteam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 147 posts

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#31

Post by CM30 »

detaro wrote: post #17
Spivak wrote: post #3

I mean good for them diversifying but it’s such a weird thing that of all the stuff to complain about on YT they go out of their way to mention having to tag videos as appropriate for children and/or for children. Like surely that’s such a tiny thing. It seems like the author is trying to muster up some nondescript hate for YT when they were going to move for ideological reasons anyway.

The "appropriate for kids" thing has caused a lot of concern for youtubers due to how relatively heavy-handed it is.

Yeah, this. Tagging a video as for kids doesn't just stop certain types of ads running on it, it also disables many core YouTube features there too. For instance, you can't use the miniplayer, add it to a playlist, etc.

This puts creators of videos that might potentially appeal to kids in a bad situation, since either they tag it as such and watch their video get buried, or avoid doing so and hope YouTube or the FTC doesn't disagree with them.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#32

Post by olah_1 »

FalconSensei wrote: post #27
jbob2000 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some kind of centralized lookup? Oh wait...

And how do you handle all the @pewdiepie@someotherinstance? The original creator has to create an account on all instances to avoid fakes, or give up on the platform?

In a P2P model, there's multiple ways of going about this.

But I tend to think that a true web of trust model makes the most sense. There may be 250 pewdiepie's on the network, but I'll just follow the one that (1) is closest in my network (followed by my friends) and (2) has the most follows (AKA highest trust).

We already follow this logic of #1 and #2 today even on centralized networks. Web of trust just makes sense to people intuitively.

Who do I know that already knows you? How else can I determine that you're legit? I'm gonna snoop your profile and see what looks legit. Ah, looks like a lot of normal people follow you already.

Of course this isn't full proof. But it's not full proof on centralized networks either. We just need reasonable certainty.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#33

Post by vertex-four »

olah_1 wrote: post #7

The problem for the Fediverse will always be domains, in my opinion. It sounds silly to the technical demographic, but to a normal person, it is a massive issue. "Which server do I choose to get in bed with?" It's not just a question of which server do you trust to be a good actor and to not shut down tomorrow. It's also a question of which domain name do you want associated with your user account? Do you want alice@…

GMail won because I had to keep deleting email from my old provider, Google was pretending to "not be evil", and they offered me an ever-increasing amount of storage. Then I told my friends about it. Eventually, everyone used it because everyone who should've known better (myself included) recommended it to them.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#34

Post by toomuchtodo »

FalconSensei wrote: post #28
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a keys.pub integration is necessary for cryptographic identity attestation and verification, since Keybase was acquired by Zoom. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22995792

Unless all of this is completely transparent to the viewers and content creators, not gonna help. Remember when Mastodon started, the fake IDs were already a problem: https://mashable.com/2017/04/06/you-cant-delete-your-mastodo...

Agree entirely. I would donate to Keys.pub and PeerTube to ratchet up the UX and make it transparent.

You shouldn’t need Youtube, Twitter, or some other centralized provider to attest to your identity; you should be able to, with centralized providers only announcing or caching that attestation (just as keybase provided for with proofs). Maybe there’s an easy way to tie this together with FIDO, U2F, etc. I need to do more research.

https://fidoalliance.org/how-fido-works/

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#35

Post by paroneayea »

olah_1 wrote: post #7

The problem for the Fediverse will always be domains, in my opinion. It sounds silly to the technical demographic, but to a normal person, it is a massive issue. "Which server do I choose to get in bed with?" It's not just a question of which server do you trust to be a good actor and to not shut down tomorrow. It's also a question of which domain name do you want associated with your user account? Do you want alice@…

Hi! I'm one of the co-authors of ActivityPub, and I agree with you. I wrote a very out-of-date writeup about bridging ActivityPub and P2P networks some time ago: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot5-boston/blob/master/f...

I think you'll find it agrees with your assessments. DNS and SSL Certificate Authorities centralize an otherwise sensible decentralized system.

It's out of date because work has continued. Here's some hints as to how we can improve the situation:

- Decrease importance of server you're on by allowing easy account migration. One easy way to do this is to use mutable data to represent your activitypub profile in a content-addressed store... you can look at mutable links in IPFS as an example (the work that we're doing on Datashards is also relevant). (ActivityPub actually does support other URI types that are not https so this is no problem...) Don't like the server you're on? Update your actor profile to point its inbox URI at another place.

- Support hosting over more p2p, easily self-hostable, NAT-punching and secure systems where you know you have a secure connection because the name of the server is actually the fingerprint of the key. That's actually what tor .onion servers and I2P servers are. There's no reason you can't run ActivityPub over such servers, and some people do, but it isn't widely supported because...

- ... because of the way we've chosen to do names. The right answer isn't webfinger (which isn't in the ActivityPub spec but is what's popularly deployed), it's petnames: https://github.com/cwebber/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-spring...

- And now you need a way to handle anti-abuse in a system that doesn't assume that domain names and instances are all too important. OcapPub outlines some of that (sadly unfinished, but the core ideas are there) https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub/blob/master/README.org

- On top of all that, maybe add store and forward messaging to support nodes being offline. This can be done and we have plans but I need to write them in a more visible place.

So in short, as one of the main authors of the biggest fediverse specs out there, not only do I agree, work is happening.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#36

Post by jtvjan »

azangru wrote: post #11
Spivak wrote: post #3

I mean good for them diversifying but it’s such a weird thing that of all the stuff to complain about on YT they go out of their way to mention having to tag videos as appropriate for children and/or for children. Like surely that’s such a tiny thing. It seems like the author is trying to muster up some nondescript hate for YT when they were going to move for ideological reasons anyway.

I wish there were a checkbox in account settings somewhere by ticking which you would essentially say, "I do not record videos for kids, just stop asking me already".

There is. In Studio, go to Settings > Channel > Advanced settings and make a selection.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#37

Post by [deleted] »

detaro wrote: post #29
FalconSensei wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do a social experiment. When you are at a store and they ask your email for your receipt, try giving then your email, and compare their expressions and the time they need to input it in the system if it's gmail or your own domain.

But the choice never was "gmail or your own domain". Pre-gmail it already was likely to be one of a few large providers, (and to a good degree still is). The argument sounds a bit like "gmail won because gmail won": For gmail to be the default assumption, they already have to have won.

[deleted]

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#38

Post by M2Ys4U »

api wrote: post #30
olah_1 wrote: post #7

The problem for the Fediverse will always be domains, in my opinion. It sounds silly to the technical demographic, but to a normal person, it is a massive issue. "Which server do I choose to get in bed with?" It's not just a question of which server do you trust to be a good actor and to not shut down tomorrow. It's also a question of which domain name do you want associated with your user account? Do you want alice@…

It also means that if these get popular they will coalesce into an oligopoly. Those huge domains will then be pressured by the costs of hosting and the need to improve the protocol to monetize their users with ads or surveillance. Congratulations, we reinvented Facebook. Anything with any hierarchy in its namespace will follow this path. Only pure P2P has a chance of avoiding it, and pure P2P is very hard to build an…

>It also means that if these get popular they will coalesce into an oligopoly.

That's true of pretty much any system, though: The Iron Law of Oligarchy[0] always applies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#39

Post by jdc »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #24
qiqitori wrote: post #18

First video played well (at reduced quality, 480p), with 6 peers. The other videos seemed to just have a single peer, and it seems like I had bad peering with that person/server, so everything was pretty much unplayable. Would be cool if there were a way to add peers from the command line. Then I could add a server or two with better peering and maybe be able to watch stuff.

Is there a way with PeerTube to use Backblaze and Cloudflare as an object store and content server of last resort? Similar to how Amazon S3 supports serving objects as torrents but you can also retrieve it directly over HTTPS.

I think if you had a torrent with an HTTP seed, you could import it into PeerTube.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#40

Post by olah_1 »

paroneayea wrote: post #35
olah_1 wrote: post #7

The problem for the Fediverse will always be domains, in my opinion. It sounds silly to the technical demographic, but to a normal person, it is a massive issue. "Which server do I choose to get in bed with?" It's not just a question of which server do you trust to be a good actor and to not shut down tomorrow. It's also a question of which domain name do you want associated with your user account? Do you want alice@…

Hi! I'm one of the co-authors of ActivityPub, and I agree with you. I wrote a very out-of-date writeup about bridging ActivityPub and P2P networks some time ago: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot5-boston/blob/master/f... I think you'll find it agrees with your assessments. DNS and SSL Certificate Authorities centralize an otherwise sensible decentralized system. It's out of date because work has continued. Here'…

Hello! Thanks so much for the reply. This is exactly why I post critiques. I want to spur conversation.

Everything I'm reading in your comment and in the links you shared, I agree with. I think the main difference is in our choice of tools.

For the network mapping (for trust and petnames), I believe that a graph structure is required. Having this at a foundational layer is important for scalability and mathematical simplicity imo.

Other than that, I think we agree on offline-first and multi-casting being requirements. And bonus points for keypair management through shamir's secret sharing and multi-device key management.

Can I contact/keep up with you directly somewhere to continue the conversation?

Post reply on HN