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

Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

diode.zone

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–307 of 307 posts

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#301

Post by nextlevelwizard »

criley2 wrote: post #300
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't poor quality stuff. Just because you don't like the content that Youtube creators make doesn't make it poor quality 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 o…

Production quality with fancy cameras and editing doesn't make the content good. It makes it fancy.

And yes there are some Youtubers whose I have subscribed to and their content is often great. However it is not consistently great enough to pay for it just like cable TV. And that is just the top 1% of the top 1%. Rest is at best mediocre and often just grabage.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#302

Post by criley2 »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #301
criley2 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't poor quality stuff. Just because you don't like the content that Youtube creators make doesn't make it poor quality 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 o…

Production quality with fancy cameras and editing doesn't make the content good. It makes it fancy. And yes there are some Youtubers whose I have subscribed to and their content is often great. However it is not consistently great enough to pay for it just like cable TV. And that is just the top 1% of the top 1%. Rest is at best mediocre and often just grabage.

Again, that's your personal opinion which clearly deviates from the public opinion. It's okay to not like it, but to call it bad because you dislike it is ridiculous.

We're talking about business models here, we're talking about a whole industry, and you should realize that your opinion is worse than useless, it's actively harming your ability to understand and predict

If PeerTube wants to be a 0.00001% write off for radical CopyLeftists and "Hackers" to put up some low effort, low value, "good" content then so be it but to even bring up Youtube in a conversation of yet-another-tiny-site is silly, because that concept is not competing with Youtube and could never compete with Youtube.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#303

Post by nextlevelwizard »

criley2 wrote: post #302
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Production quality with fancy cameras and editing doesn't make the content good. It makes it fancy. And yes there are some Youtubers whose I have subscribed to and their content is often great. However it is not consistently great enough to pay for it just like cable TV. And that is just the top 1% of the top 1%. Rest is at best mediocre and often just grabage.

Again, that's your personal opinion which clearly deviates from the public opinion. It's okay to not like it, but to call it bad because you dislike it is ridiculous. We're talking about business models here, we're talking about a whole industry, and you should realize that your opinion is worse than useless, it's actively harming your ability to understand and predict If PeerTube wants to be a 0.00001% write off for…

So my opinion doens't matter and is worse than useless, but your opinion on PeerTube's content is worth while? If my opinion deviates so much from the public's opinion why isn't Youtube pay per view? Or at least monthly subscription? Sadly most people are not tech savy enough to use ad blockers or are consuming Youtube with their mobile devices where they can't block ads.

As for PeerTube I don't care. Sadly video is currently expensive to host and only Google has the pockets to operate a site like Youtube. I won't pay for it and the day my adblocker stops working is the day I stop watching it.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#304

Post by valdiorn »

leothecool wrote: post #284
kragen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not be aware of this, but like everything on PeerTube, the video we are commenting on here is in fact served up via BitTorrent. I got about a third of it from the diode.zone seed, which, if I understand correctly, is paid for out of Micah Scott's Patreon. The inefficiency of torrents on near-symmetric internet connections is pretty minor. If a 1GiB movie is on Netflix, each user has to download 1GiB of data o…

So... if I watch a copywritten video on peertube, the MPAA might sue me for being a peer and distributing it?

This is actually a really important question that we need an answer to.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#305

Post by valdiorn »

tsimionescu wrote: post #207
ShamelessC wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The channel in this post has 20 YouTube subscribers and no more than a couple thousand total YouTube views. ...that's quite a lot even on YouTube, no? I always assumed the videos recommended for their sheer popularity were a "top 1%" sort of situation.

Well, if you're comparing against all YouTube users, or even all YouTube users who have ever uploaded a video, then yes, it's a lot. On the other hand, compared to most content being viewed on YouTube, it's not even tiny, it's minuscule. There are many niche hobbyist communities or individual hobbyist singers getting much more than that. 20 subscribers basically means that not even your friends and family are looking…

I have a random "a vs. b" video on my personal channel with 150k views. A few thousand views is obtainable by accident just naming your video a certain way.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#306

Post by dude187 »

kragen wrote: post #294
dude187 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which articles do you mean? I can't remember the last time I saw anything other than a template that was anything more than semiprotected. I agree that deletionism is a big problem.

Latest example I've seen is the article for Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's under "extended-confirmed-protection", listed as a "Good article". Yet starts right off with the summary, "Marjorie Greene,[3] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[4] conspiracy theorist[5] serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district.[6]"

Those kind of abstract accusations do not belong in an encyclopedia article, and while there's a wealth of "citations" buried under the [5], none are anything other than news articles repeating the same accusation. It's baseless mudslinging that is the exact opposite of sticking to provable individual claims and facts, like a proper encyclopedia article should consist of.

Granted, it's not an insurmountable bar as it appears anyone with 500 edits can begin to participate. However, it shows a clear attempt to control the narrative to a specific one, and erecting barriers against changing that while officially endorsing the current one. It spans greater than just that, and seems common across other political articles on Wikipedia.

Re: Bye YouTube, Hello PeerTube [video]

#307

Post by kragen »

dude187 wrote: post #306
kragen wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which articles do you mean? I can't remember the last time I saw anything other than a template that was anything more than semiprotected. I agree that deletionism is a big problem.

Latest example I've seen is the article for Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's under "extended-confirmed-protection", listed as a "Good article". Yet starts right off with the summary, "Marjorie Greene,[3] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[4] conspiracy theorist[5] serving as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district.[6]" Those kind of abstract accusations do not belong in an e…

Hmm, by saying that the accusations are "baseless", you seem to be saying that she's not actually a conspiracy theorist. But it's not just repetitions of a flat accusation; for example, NPR quoted her as saying, "There's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it." (Evidently she's also claimed that the Clintons had John F. Kennedy Jr. killed, that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin performed a human sacrifice in order to drink a child's blood, that the damage to the Pentagon 20 years ago was due to a missile rather than an airplane impact, and that the UN is committing genocide against white people.) Are you saying that NPR was lying in attributing that quote to her, or that she did say that but somehow is nevertheless not a conspiracy theorist? Or am I misinterpreting your claim of "baseless mudslinging"?

It seems to me that describing Marjorie Taylor Greene as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" is just as encyclopedic and verifiable as describing Charles Manson as "an American criminal who led the Manson Family" or Jeffrey Dahmer as "an American serial killer and sex offender who committed the murder and dismemberment of 17 men and boys". Why do you disagree?

Post reply on HN