291–300 of 307 posts
This video is not very good however, there's something not very stimulating to the imagination about moving from youtube yet still using shallow buzzwords like "content creator", "monetise", "open source".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that dns and static web servers are serving an absolutely minuscule amount of data while a single video on youtube is several GB in the higher qualities. No one can compete on video hosting because it is constantly at the upper limit of what is possible. It will be forever before all videos go 4k and when they do, there will be a push to have it all at 60fps and then at higher bitrates and then at 120fps…
Diminishing returns. I think most people would agree that 1Mbps 1080p AV1 looks ok ( https://demo.bitmovin.com/public/firefox/av1/ -- use the quality selector and wait a while) and the vast majority of "content" doesn't warrant cinema quality anyway. There's always some push for more quality but that doesn't mean the audience requires it. Youtube itself had horrible quality and outdated codecs for a long long time ye…
So yeah they were not the best video possible to create but they were the best for the internet at the time and still are. You can upload 8k HDR 60fps videos which are sized at multiple GB right now.
Once youtube has it, people are not going to tolerate 720p video from an alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is widely mirrored, pseudonymous for writers, anonymous for readers (unlike YouTube!), possessed of internal policies against most kinds of censorship, and quite practically inconvenient to censor externally. Certainly you could do better on these axes, but Wikipedia is already getting an enormous amount of vital information to people despite other people wanting to suppress that information.
The censorship on Wikipedia is internal. Biased articles locked from public editing, delete hungry maintainers that gatekeep content away from the site. Sure some countries can block it, but the subtle internal censorship is far more damaging because it's easy for people to overlook/write off
I agree that deletionism is a big problem.
Since when is there comment censorship on HN? Just had my comment disappear
However, please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28602116 - I've banned your account because you've been breaking the site rules repeatedly and egregiously. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email us at hn@ycombinator.com and commit to using the site as intended. That means no more flamebait, no more unsubstantive comments, no more snark, and certainly no more personal attacks.
I don't understand the economics of this at all. Video distribution is bandwidth heavy. If you're running your own peer tube instance the server costs are surely going to outstrip any revenue you make from it. if users have to carry that load and seed your stuff they'll have to waste their own storage. What is the incentive for anyone to do this? Exacerbated by the fact that the entire thing mostly seems to attract p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how lame it is How so? Just because something is not popular (yet?) doesn't mean it's lame. Also, view counts on a single instance are not representative of the entire federation. Although i agree removing view counts would be good, because it produces bad incentives to artificially inflate your view count (which i've never witnessed on Peertube instances so far, but is possible).
It’s not that I think it really is lame, just demonstrating the thought process of your average user clicking on a PeerTube link.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main reason is because Bittorrent doesn't have a "social networking" layer like ActivityPub fediverse has, for user/channel following, comments, etc... We could (should?) build a Popcorn Time "social" UI using RSS feeds and some semantic metadata to discover content, but that just isn't there yet. You suggest we don't need it, but what do you use for that purpose? Peertube reuses an established social networking…
> but what do you use for that purpose? twitter . or fb or mastodon or whatever. social and video are orthogonal problems to solve (utube didnt start as a social network)
Many of the popular centralized platforms we have today became popular due to integration with standard 3rd-party tooling such as email, RSS... Now that youtube has shut down RSS feeds, i need an account an API key to simply download videos from my favorite artists... or i can parse the website like youtube-dl but then i need to upgrade my code (or dependencies) every few weeks because Google intentionally broke it to prevent 3rd party clients from existing at all.
With a service like Peertube, i can hit the public API directly, and the API is the protocol. So there is technically very little difference between making a Mastodon or Peertube client, and that's why they can talk to one another. But that Mastodon can interact with Peertube is not only useful to users, it's an overall very good indicator that Peertube can be interfaced reasonably-well with other tools/systems because it's a website and websites are intended to be parsed, if only by a web browser.
So i don't really understand your point. Are you against social networking as part of a video platform, at all, and just want a raw content-addressed storage pool of videos (Bittorrent)? Do you personally not wish to use 3rd party integrations (like Mastodon comments)? If so, why is it a bad thing for others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you completely validate my point that people aren't willing to pay for content, the original sin making alternative monetization a requirement. 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.
If you want to look it like that wouldn't the "original sin" be making poor quality stuff and expecting someone to pay for it? Yeah, I can watch someone pour molten metal on safety glass, that seems interesting, but I wouldn't pay for it. It isn't that interesting.
Ironically, when I go to Peertube, all the content there is objectively low quality with extremely poor production value, little to no editing, and clearly done with the lowest of budgets.
The content airing on Youtube from the top ~1000+ creators is easily as good or better than the majority of cable TV.
It's often extremely high quality content, frankly.