271–280 of 376 posts
Does it allow streaming?
This does: https://safebots.github.io/Safecloud I designed it in order to stream videos and get paid without worrying about getting deplatformed Two weeks ago it was covered in a respected security publication: https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/06/19/safecloud-browser... It's coming out soon, but if you're adventurous, you can try it on GitHub already. Edit: I posted it on HN right now as https://news.ycombinator.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, you're hosting on FreeTube (paying for hosting & bandwidth costs) - how are you making money? Most YouTubers don't want to run their own ad network or sell a physical product. Sponsors make deals conditional on YouTube engagement metrics.
There are lots of strategies how to make money and it will vary based on your specialty. It could be premium content, premium services, exclusive engagement with your fans, merchandising (e.g., many cooking YouTubers sell their own brand of cooking utensils that they have designed themselves). It requires some thought, but the idea is to deepen the authenticity and engagement by building an actual community and your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, but I was speaking to PeerTube's own claim that it is an alternative to YouTube, rather than the narrow use case you're describing. For the vast majority of the people on the planet, it is not an alternative to YouTube because it's very difficult to discover content. When I go to YouTube, I can find videos immediately. If I want to find videos via PeerTube, it's a journey. It's the same journey that…
> An alternative to Big Tech's video platforms > PeerTube is a tool for sharing online videos developed by Framasoft, a french non-profit. > PeerTube allows you to create your own video platform, in complete independence. I think it's pretty clear that it's software for running your own video sharing platform? Sure, people are used to monopolies and consolidation now, but surely you can wrap you head around the idea…
https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube
> PeerTube is a free, decentralized and federated video platform developed as an alternative to other platforms that centralize our data and attention, such as YouTube, Dailymotion or Vimeo.
The original PeerTube launch I saw on this platform several years ago very much sold it as a replacement for YouTube. I'm not sure what exactly you think I'm saying or trying to do here, but what I've said has absolutely nothing to do with the use case you're defending. It's a good use case and it makes sense. It's fine for hosting your own stuff or in coursework or something where the videos are directly linked to from a CMS. Some people want to host their own stuff. Some people should host their own stuff.
For everybody else... The UX sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what they want to watch What does that even mean? Not everything published has to be with the purpose of entertaining. This is a more recent mindset that came with the advent of the "Content Creator" (think Mr.Beast). But it needs not be this engineered. Historically, some of the more interesting channels on YouTube have been people organically sharing something that was genuinely dear to them . Offered with little…
>> what they want to watch > Not everything published has to be with the purpose of entertaining. 1. Why do you assume that people would “want to watch” something only for entertainment reasons, instead of for educational reasons, etc. GP commenter did not seem to even imply any focus on entertainment like your assumption that entertainment is the only reason someone could ‘want to watch’ something. 2. As far as what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google splits with the creator 50-50. If you got paid $1000, so did Google. And given their hosting infrastructure, network, and other tools, I would say it's a miracle they don't charge to upload.
Not a miracle if the math works out such that their margins cover the infrastructural fixed costs. Just simple economics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair, Google admitted in the DoJ trial where it was convicted of being a monopolist that the revenues that it paid out were roughly 10% of the revenues it collected. If you have fewer than a requisite number of subscribers they keep 100% of the monetization proceeds. I was simply struck by the parallels between the way YouTube has grown up and how the whole movie industry grew up.
Because Google is losing money for those videos, they're collecting 100% of the revenue and shouldering 100% of the costs and 100% of the net loss. Perhaps they should split the net loss 50-50 with those users, but then no one would use YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would an admin run a server if they might have the feds knocking at their door? Sure, people might run nodes that host only their content, but they sure are disincentivized from running any sort of shared service. This is the same problem as TOR exit nodes and why 3 letter agencies run most of them.
it's a safe harbor. If the admin unlists videos when they get a DMCA takedown they are in the green. believe it or not, YT too gets a crapload of copyrighted content uploaded hourly yet they exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of strategies how to make money and it will vary based on your specialty. It could be premium content, premium services, exclusive engagement with your fans, merchandising (e.g., many cooking YouTubers sell their own brand of cooking utensils that they have designed themselves). It requires some thought, but the idea is to deepen the authenticity and engagement by building an actual community and your…
Selling get rich quick schemes, workout plans, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a safe harbor. If the admin unlists videos when they get a DMCA takedown they are in the green. believe it or not, YT too gets a crapload of copyrighted content uploaded hourly yet they exist
Believe it or not, the RIAA does not care, and YouTube has four orders of magnitude more lawyers than you do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Google is losing money for those videos, they're collecting 100% of the revenue and shouldering 100% of the costs and 100% of the net loss. Perhaps they should split the net loss 50-50 with those users, but then no one would use YouTube.
Goog’s monetization requirements make no sense: requiring regular posting of new videos costs them money. You have people posting crap just to keep their monetization active. More subscribers to a channel doesn’t save Google money at all. Requiring X hours of views encourages posting longer videos, which costs them more to store and process.