271–280 of 307 posts
Odysee is functionally a much better Youtube alternative than Peertube. Too bad it mostly acts like the Youtube equivalent of Parler now.
As someone who has never used Odysee, how is it better? I'm sure Peertube project contributors would be happy to receive constructive feedback on how to improve their project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who has never used Odysee, how is it better? I'm sure Peertube project contributors would be happy to receive constructive feedback on how to improve their project.
As an end-user, the noticeable difference for me is that when you play a video on Odysee, it plays , unlike Peertube videos.
Distributing videos requires good connectivity so it's not a surprise a smaller instance which is not seeded by other instances elsewhere have a hard time serving you. See also: https://docs.joinpeertube.org/admin-following-instances?id=i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well. Wikipedia did.
Wikipedia is not distributed, anonymous, or censor-proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. From a purely-technical lens, that may not seem like a fatal flaw. When viewed through a whole-product lens, it is. PeerTube's anonymous, censor-proof nature is enough to attract a certain class of content that repels advertisers, but then what? Until the dark side of distributed te…
> PeerTube's anonymous, censor-proof nature Peertube is neither of those things. Publishing is pseudonymous, not anonymous: requires an account on the server you'd like to publish videos to, just like youtube and other video platforms. And it's only censorship-proof as much as it uses HTTPS/WebRTC to share content. I haven't seen any study of the Sybil-proofness of Webtorrent protocol, but Peertube certainly does not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>It's not P2P, it's federated. It's both. PeerTube instances federate with each other, but the video player uses P2P to spread the load between viewers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> PeerTube's anonymous, censor-proof nature Peertube is neither of those things. Publishing is pseudonymous, not anonymous: requires an account on the server you'd like to publish videos to, just like youtube and other video platforms. And it's only censorship-proof as much as it uses HTTPS/WebRTC to share content. I haven't seen any study of the Sybil-proofness of Webtorrent protocol, but Peertube certainly does not…
Last time I checked the way that webtorrent/peertube queries for peers watching same video is centralised over websockets to a a select few webtorrent trackers, I think theirs only 2 or 3 running, meaning if you wanted to take down peertubes p2p functionality all you would have to hit would be their webtorrent trackers with a ddos and the platform would go down, I'm not 100% about sibil protections but I do know that…
Maybe you're talking about STUN servers? There's only 2 hardcoded STUN servers for the moment [0] indeed, but that's only for WebRTC discovery and will be easy to fix. It does not prevent server-side redundancy because every peertube instance runs its own tracker, from my understanding on the protocol (let me know if i've got that wrong), but taking those STUN servers down would indeed prevent p2p seeding, except for publicly-routable clients (not behind NAT).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what you mean, the homepage of YouTube immediately shows you a grid of videos and an interface for exploring other categories/genres if they're not interesting to you.
If you find anything interesting in there, it means Google is successfully tracking you across the web to know your habits. Try from a fresh browser/computer and you'll see all recommendations are commercial trash-vertisement with no human/scientific/political interest. Some of these suggested videos may be fun to watch but Youtube has become really bad over the years to discover interesting, not well-known content.…
...so they're not interesting to you. I see several news and music-related videos that I might watch. Like I said, YouTube presents you with a set of videos you may be interested in, and even if you're not, it also gives you tools for finding videos yourself (e.g., through tags & categories). The moment you start watching videos, it starts refining recommendations and funneling you towards more content.
By contrast, PeerTube's homepage is pretty bare. I don't even know what the interface would look like if I did sign up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's because their “landing pages” [...] aren't instances That is a technically correct answer, but it misses the point: they're asking users to sign up before they even see the product. They're expecting that the premise of the site alone is enough to entice users to join, which is very optimistic. It would be better to immediately direct the user to content, and then provide reasons for why they should get an a…
joinpeertube.org has a "content selection" featuring 1 video, 1 channel and 1 instance on the homepage. It also has a "browse instances" button above that and further down the page, and a search form powered by sepiasearch.org. It's already not that bad compared to many fediverse landing pages, but i'm sure suggestions are appreciated. Just consider publishing more content on the homepage would raise questions, like…
Yeah, like I mentioned, PeerTube is currently targeted at those attracted to the premise alone. Most people don't notice things like you did, and they're not going to interpret the apparent lack of features as a plus. If it's going to gain mass-adoption, it really needs to work on first impressions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People expecting content for free is the Original Sin. Advertisers are just a side effect of peoples unwillingness to pay for their content.
There is a reason why these Youtube channels don't just roll their own platform: their content is not worth money. Same reason why no one pays for your blog. It is just not worth any amount of money. There are many Youtubers whose content I like, but if I had to pay monthly fee (or pay per view) for their videos I wouldn't watch them. I think this was pretty much confirmed with the Youtube Red experiment. Many of the…
You're willing to watch the content, just not pay for it.
This is why concepts like PeerTube will never attract the majority of content, because it isn't free to make it, it isn't free to show it, it's only free to consume it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why don't we just use BitTorrent for videos? PeerTube uses BitTorrent under the hood.
Not exactly, no. It uses Webtorrent, which is a WebRTC-layer port of the Bittorrent protocol. The Webtorrent and Bittorrent protocols are incompatible, despite hashes being the same. With libtorrent starting to support Webtorrent, we should "soon" see a new generation of torrent clients who can bridge the gap between those two protocols.