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

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#131

Post by fzeroracer »

soulofmischief wrote: post #127
fzeroracer wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't separate the two experiences. What the poster was saying is that it was already tried. They were already separated. And then advertisers realized that having your ads displayed on video content that is damaging to your company's image is generally Really Really Bad for PR. No company is going to sign on for your platform if they can't control where and how their ads are shown.

Try thinking outside of the box before criticizing an approach you don't even understand. There is no reason why the ad needs to be displayed next to the video content and no reason it can't be displayed in a content-agnostic fashion. I don't want to go into the details of my revenue model but it's sound and has undergone multiple refinements. I don't need you to explain PR to me. I've done my research. I've read Cry…

You can say you know more about this subject than I do, and that might be right. But that doesn't mean you'll find success, especially with that attitude. Plus your idea of 'content-agnostic' ads don't work because by existing on the same page and site, it's viewed as an endorsement. If it's not because of the video itself, then it'll be because of the videos that your site hosts. That's why people have gone after advertisers whom had ads on sites such as Breitbart. The alternative is ads which are purely browser-based and if that's your revenue model, then you were already beaten there by Brave.

But no, I won't 'reverse my thrusters'. You want me to change my opinion, then prove me wrong. Otherwise all you have is your word, and words are meaningless.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#132

Post by Izkata »

DanBC wrote: post #55
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.

There's a weird mix of regulation and Youtube action that mean no-one (parents, youtubers, regulators) are happy with the current result. We want to protect children from predatory data harvesting, so we have laws like COPPA (in the US). YouTube's answer to COPPA was to just forbid children under 13 having their own account and launching Youtube Kids. Children under 13 want to watch youtube, and the content they want…

> And parents are left not knowing if this content aimed at children actually is aimed at children or if it's going to include jokes about anal rape[1].

> [1] On the off-chance that anyone from YouTube is reading this this is a real fucking example, but there's no way to tell you.

Well, in the 90s they sometimes put adult jokes/puns in cartoons so adults would get something out of it and watch alongside their kids. Your example reminded me of this from Animaniacs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xmAC9Qu908

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#133

Post by chrismorgan »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #97
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@…

While I don't agree that "gmail" is "be myself", I do think the biggest missing piece from the Fediverse is an easy, straightforward way to handle "I already have a domain and an email at that domain, I want to use that domain for the fediverse, without hosting anyone else's content that might create liability or annoyance". I have an email address. That unique identifier is also what I'd want to use for the fedivers…

This is what I say every time; and combined with that, I want to be able to use different ActivityPub software all from my own domain. I don’t want to run Mastodon at foo.chrismorgan.info, publish blog posts via ActivityPub at bar.chrismorgan.info, handle videos at baz.chrismorgan.info, &c. I just want to be me@chrismorgan.info (I’ll settle for @me@chrismorgan.info if I must) everywhere.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#134

Post by FriendlyNormie »

twomoretime wrote: post #93
vertex-four wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't doubt that Google pre IPO probably believed in their motto. It's the investor influence that has gradually steered Google into lucrative but ethically questionable domains.

No post body was provided.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#135

Post by Kye »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #89
Kye wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Observation of YouTubers: if they have a website, they rarely if ever link or mention it.

"Link is in the description."

The links I see see usually go off to things like a Bandcamp page or a print sales site not under their own domain. Or referral links.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#136

Post by Kye »

notafraudster wrote: post #71
Kye wrote: post #2

It seems like PeerTube adoption is slower than Mastodon. Blender's instance[1] is the only other non-toy instance I know of. It's probably because video is much harder to work with, so fewer people do it in the first place. [1] https://video.blender.org/

I opened this to see what "non-toy instance" might refer to. It does have a lot of videos. But the highest view count is just shy of 700, and of the hundreds of videos, only maybe a half-dozen have three-digit view counts. It seems like new videos are averaging I don't know what the threshold for "toy" versus "non-toy" is in terms of seriousness, but I do know that I uploaded a video for a professor of mine 5 or 6 ye…

Non-toy meaning a serious website, not something someone plays with in their time off.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#137

Post by afiori »

rajman187 wrote: post #78
krainboltgreene wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was that GMail became so ubiquitus as to no longer be a part of the equation. I remember in 2009~ forms automatically adding @gmail.com.

Then this could not be the reason they won—initially it was not the “ubiquity of gmail” as it was just new to the market and could not be synonymous with email. They won by providing a good service for free with an ever-increasing capacity and iterating over features. Note that I’m not suggesting it was perfect or the best solution; plenty of questionable decisions made along the way (the way inbox was handled comes…

That is the argument, that for a time it was in practice a default choice, just a bit before that the default choice was hotmail, at least in italy.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#138

Post by soulofmischief »

fzeroracer wrote: post #131
soulofmischief wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try thinking outside of the box before criticizing an approach you don't even understand. There is no reason why the ad needs to be displayed next to the video content and no reason it can't be displayed in a content-agnostic fashion. I don't want to go into the details of my revenue model but it's sound and has undergone multiple refinements. I don't need you to explain PR to me. I've done my research. I've read Cry…

You can say you know more about this subject than I do, and that might be right. But that doesn't mean you'll find success, especially with that attitude. Plus your idea of 'content-agnostic' ads don't work because by existing on the same page and site, it's viewed as an endorsement. If it's not because of the video itself, then it'll be because of the videos that your site hosts. That's why people have gone after ad…

> But that doesn't mean you'll find success, especially with that attitude.

Lol. You're the one with the negative attitude. You don't know anything about my model and you're just playing devil's advocate. I never claimed it would be successful, I just said it was pretty decent and was worth exploring.

You're being a serious negative nancy. I don't need to change your opinion, and I don't need to prove you wrong, because your statements are empty and deflective and there is no real substance or argument other than "it won't work because I can't imagine a platform other than the ones I have already seen".

And ironically you say my words are meaningless. I've been conservative with my speech, making no hard claims, and you're throwing out whatever spice you can think of. I'm talking from a position reached by years of research, and you're talking straight from your ass.

You can continue to be this way, it's not in my interest to convert you or explain my model any further. Now I suggest you end this over-critical tirade before you cross the line of civility and I have to report you. Good bye.

Re: We Are Trying Out PeerTube

#140

Post by oarsinsync »

chasd00 wrote: post #122
barney54 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is right on, along with the large amount of free storage.

also, Gmail invented the conversation format. People forget that all email prior was displayed by receive datetime desc only. finally, Gmail was the first to get Ajax right in a webmail setup, new mail just showed up without having to click a refresh or send/receive button.

It’s a shame that gmail ignored long-standing methods of threading email chains that other clients already had been doing for years, in lieu of their subject based 100 email limit conversations.

It’s also a shame that they also helped enforce top posting, especially considering how ludicrous it is in the context of threaded emails.

Post reply on HN