> Please don't install PeerTube for production on a small device behind a low bandwidth connection (example: a Raspberry PI behind your ADSL link) because it could slow down the fediverse.
Sounds like PeerTube is vulnerable to a sorts of denial of service attack from bad actors that would join and then limit the bandwidth to extreme amounts.
Hasn’t this been solved already in other P2P protocols? Couldn’t they have built upon an existing protocol that protected them against this?
Regardless of that specific problem, it would be wise to build upon an existing protocol (e.g. IPFS), because it would help prevent future problems AND it would increase traction of federated content sharing. The more people use a single protocol, the more all applications benefit in latency, speed, availability; but also in future development.
This is the part that I find somewhat unfortunate about Peertube. This means that only ActivityPub clients that support WebRTC will be able to access Peertube media. Right now, I think this basically means just modern web browsers. It bothers me somewhat that an early, potentially major ActivityPub service is going to limit full functionality to the few existing major web browsers. That's the opposite of what I want from a federated protocol. (Someone correct me if I've got any of this wrong.)
Regardless, Peertube seems awesome, and I hope we keep seeing more and more services built on ActivityPub.
ActivityPub defines federation messages server to server and client to server. It is not a protocol per se, and rather a message exchange standard, which could perfectly be used only between servers, as is the case with federation of videos between PeerTube instances, and more recently for video comment feeds, that can interact with the larger fediverse (Hubzilla and Mastodon so far were tested).
In no way it defines how you access media. That is defined by the use of WebRTC, which is supported by a growing number of browsers, and anyway provides a fallback to direct streaming (HTTP), so that any browser can interact.
> and anyway provides a fallback to direct streaming (HTTP), so that any browser can interact.
Ah, that's awesome. That definitely assuages my fears somewhat.
> [ActivityPub] In no way it defines how you access media.
ActivityStreams (which ActivityPub builds on) does define an attachment property for messages [1]. Is this not a standard mechanism for clients to access ActivityPub media (via the attachment's type and url)?
It is, but I don't see how web browsers would need to interact directly with ActivityPub. That's just a way to settle on a json structure everyone will be using in their web application (that acts as AP client), as is the case in Mastodon.
Here with PeerTube the client interface doesn't interact with AP to watch videos or get them. It just requests the list directly to the server.
WebRTC libraries exist outside of browsers. What video-capable software are you hoping to use this with that isn't a browser and isn't able to be wired up to a library?
My concern isn't about any current AP clients; it's that we'd be cutting off a whole dearth of potential future AP clients by making it the general expectation that all viable AP clients support WebRTC, and thus the task of building a client goes from the relatively simple "support json over http" to "support those + WebTorrent/WebRTC", which (despite what you say) isn't trivial (unless the client is in-browser/webview). Even if "just hook up a library" were a viable solution, the requisite increase in complexity/LOC/bugs would be really unfortunate. If this were the case, it seems to me we'd lose a lot of potential future diversity in AP clients.
I'm having trouble finding any complete WebRTC implementations outside of browsers, do you have any examples?
This issue (i.e. not building upon an existing protocols such as IPFS or bit torrent tech) is persistent within the alt-net / distributed-net community and means that MANY services have fickle/hacked-together (in the bad way) feel to them. Even stuff like Riot.im (which is built on top of the Matrix protocol) has a sluggish/react-js-overload feel to it.. plus the deep&wide stack makes it incredibly hard to understand/trust the system in a meaningful way.
Also, I believe that part reason for the success of Hacker News and Reddit is largely their extremely simple, non-intrusive and non-animated interfaces - making flashy front-ends for distributed-net apps is a lost cause. Bittorrent took off because the tech was right; not because of a animated web interface that could correctly scale to mobile.
So speaking from the Riot/Matrix perspective, this is a really interesting phenomenon which we are painfully aware of. For context: we built centralised comms apps before creating Matrix. So we have a direct side by side comparison, and reckon it’s about 6x more effort to do the decentralised equivalent. On the UX side, our centralised apps were actually pretty polished and lightweight - sadly they are gone now (hence in part Matrix), but you can get an idea from stuff like https://web.archive.org/web/20170102145839/http://blah.com/.
So, how come decentralised apps can end up with worse UX than their centralised equivalents? My theory is:
* Harder tech means that more resources get focused on the decentralisation bit
* Harder to find UI/UX designers who understand the decentralisation requirements (although this is changing thanks to blockchain hype)
* Decentralised early users tend to be geeky and push the product in a geeky direction
But the key thing is that pre-decentralisation we probably had a 1:3 ratio of backend to frontend work. Then in Matrix it’s like 1:1, and the dilution on the frontend notices.
That said, this can be fixed, and obviously it’s critical to Riot to fix it. We’ve contracted a proper UI/UX designer at last a few weeks ago and are hunting for more frontend devs.
And evidence it can work: a good example of a decentralised project with decent UX is Mastodon.
Good to hear that you are dedicating attention to Riot's UI which is currently the only decentralized app I use :). Less often really is better when it comes to UI, case in point: having to admin Google Apps could be great but is in fact a pain due to sluggish JS redrawing plus constantly re-arranged navi-bar(s)/icons/text/etc. causing one to NEVER be properly fast with it which is a pain for anyone working on daily admin tasks for an organisation (me).
Also, thanks for drawing attention to my ignorance when it came to the protocol aspect: can see key players ARE built on proper protocols.
(just to be clear: I’m responding to the “UX of decentralised apps is crap” bit of the parent post rather than “build on existing protocols”, given peertube and riot and mastodon etc all build on well defined protocols.)
If their goal is to be "decentralized" that might not fit the bill (depending on your definition of decentralized). I wouldn't consider Tor to be decentralized.
What's more it's a bit sad that only a small part of the content can't be served by those small peers making them useful instead of harmful to the network...
PeerTube also federates using the W3C ActivityPub protocol, so Mastodon users can follow PeerTube channels and comment on videos as they would respond to other statuses :)
This is awesome to see, I feel like a decentralized social format is really starting to come together, now that there's several reasonably popular pieces of software using the same compatible protocol.
Please write this up in longer form (or point out where you have already) if you get a chance! I'm vaguely aware that the French FOSS community is possibly the strongest (which includes having strong institutions like Framasoft) in the world, but know hardly any details, and I think very few people in the English speaking FOSS world even have that vague awareness.
Well basically framasoft is a mature community (created 17 years ago) around free software.
First, they were just a portal (https://framasoft.org/) listing good FOSS you could download for windows and a forum to help each other.
It was the best, most stable and reliable source for that kind of info at the time, and lead a lot of people gaining trust in FOSS, trying out Linux, or like me, dig more and start programming.
Eventually they got to write informative and engaged blog posts. They always took the time to explain why and what, and I'm very grateful for that. It's transparent attitude I respect. Because of this they got echoed by framous voices such as Tristan Nitot (from Mozilla at the time) and Sebsauvage (pretty much the most famous nerd blog in the country).
Among their projects, they made the "portable" versions of free software quite popular, to the extend of creating a USB key where you could store your fav stuff (OOo, Firefox, vlc, etc) and carry a decent working environment anywhere you went, with a launcher on the systray.
Then they got involved politically, especially against the DADVSI law in France. They also teamed up with "la quadrature du net", a quite tenacious group trying to defend the free Web (that teamed up with wikimedia :)). The impressive feat here is the fact they are a small team, with very low budget, but yet managed to involve the "Conseil d'Etat" and the "Conseil constutionnel". I like the fact they did it every time in a formal, respectful manner. In politics, it's quite hard to do.
The last accomplishment of framasoft is to be alive. It's all about the constant work they've done, again and again, as they didn't have major actors to help them or a big source of income.
Today they host a load of open source web services to offer alternative to google agenda, google doc, dropbox, twitter, etc. In total 27 ranging from doodle clones to pastebins. The service are not as good as the original ones, but they work damn well and are free, using open formats.
I make sure I donate to them once in a while even if I don't go to their site that much anymore. But I do use their agenda, syncing it on thunderbird and my android phone.
I think same goes with Germany, and maybe Spain as well. Chaos Computer Club is famous, but guifi.net[1] deserves to known more (than it currently is)!
> Guifi.net is a free, open and neutral, mostly wireless telecommunicationscommunity network, with over 33,000 active nodes and about 46,000 km of wireless links (as of April 2017). The majority of these nodes are located in Catalonia and the Valencian Community, in Spain. but the network is growing in other parts of the world. The network is self-organized and operated by the users using unlicensed wireless links and open optical fibre links.
> The nodes of the network are contributed by individuals, companies and administrations that freely connect to an open network of telecommunications and extend the network wherever the infrastructure and content might not otherwise be accessible. Nodes join the network following the self-provision model since the whole structure is explicitly open to facilitate understanding how it is structured, so that everyone can create new sections as required. That results in an network infrastructure commons that provides abundant connectivity.
I've always wondered why people want to decentralize hosting of content. This, IMO, is a much harder task which leads to such restrictions as
> Please don't install PeerTube for production on a small device behind a low bandwidth connection (example: a Raspberry PI behind your ADSL link) because it could slow down the fediverse.
Why not simply decentralize the content index and let other people worry about storage for videos? When I go to Youtube, I'm there because it's a platform where I can find a large variety of entertainment without putting any effort into it, not because Google is hosting them. I'm picturing the backend here being a decentralized database of video metadata (including where and how it is hosted), and some sort of frontend where every video in the index can be viewed through a unified player.
If we're trying to give oppressed people the ability to host their controversial content, just have them host it behind Tor or over the bittorrent network and then add it to the index. Otherwise we could just let people link to videos on other video hosting sites or on their own personal websites.
Content discovery sucks nowadays. The search results bring up mostly bigger channels instead of relevant ones. Recommendations are based on view history and likes, which means you get more of the same instead of someting new. I constantly get videos I've seen already in my recommendations, these stay there for weeks until I click on them.
The major feature I used for discovery is long gone - it was the ability to add video responses, which allowed me to not only find small, niche channels with great stuff but also built a sense of community. I don't get why did they remove this,but ever since they did the site just never felt the same.
I've noticed a growing pattern in Youtube land. I'll watch a video of of some event, maybe a talk given by a professor. Then a week or so later I'll get a suggestion to watch the same exact talk which has been uploaded by a different user, perhaps with some minor video modification to trip up duplication filters or something. It's really lowering the quality of my suggestion feed.
At least you are getting content from other channels. It seems like all my recommendations are to videos from the last few channels I have watched. Never anything I haven't heard of before. Even most of the channels I subscribe to never show up in my feed.
It's the old exploration vs exploitation tradeoff. Most recommendation algorithms are highly optimized for exploitation and not exploration.
I'm not sure there's an algorithm in the world that would be able to recommend videos that aren't similar to the ones you currently watch but that you would still like. I think the best route is to just reccomend videos that are similar and rely on external sources (friend/community recommendations, Reddit, etc) for lateral movement across genres.
I can recommend OReilly's book Collective Intelligence. It shows several ways to get useful recommendation feeds from existing databases, irrespective of the similarity of content.
I did what you said: created a video platform on RasPi + static site gen + CDN. The live streaming and everything work great. I've recorded some comparisons with IPFS / DTube and looked at BitChute / WebTorrents a bit. I remain unconvinced, meanwhile I see my system working great from first principles. Here's a show-n-tell I recorded this morning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcEVIibu1CE, and here's a self-hosted comparison of platforms: https://ispooge.com/2018-03-14-video-platforms-compared.html. The whole project is just a couple months old, could use some feedback.
The basic problem is bandwidth. If you don't decentralize hosting with something like BitTorrent, then only a few large organizations have the bandwidth to safely host videos that could go viral. A decentralized index with centralized hosting doesn't really solve this problem.
(PeerTube and WebTorrent don't fully solve this problem either, but that's because the core problem is political/economic rather than technical.)
>The basic problem is bandwidth. If you don't decentralize hosting with something like BitTorrent, then only a few large organizations have the bandwidth to safely host videos that could go viral.
Video storage would be out of scope for the index, and for good reason; other projects do it better than a completely new project not focused on decentralized file storage could be expected to.
The solution to the bandwidth problem would in fact be to just support existing storage solutions like bittorrent, ipfs, etc. So long as the video player supports it and the upload process is not complicated for non-technical users, problem solved.
While I agree in principle, I think it's because a good video streaming service is not just about the storage and the index. Adaptive delivery, such as the DASH technique [0], is a huge part of it.
Content always ends up gated, restricted, metered, monitored, censored and moderated; and at some point, this will run afoul of all but the most casual users.
It looks like this doesn't offer any way for video creators to get paid?
Right now a lot of major video creators are looking to leave YouTube because YouTube is marking their videos as ineligible for monetization. That's the market you want to capture if you want to succeed as a YouTube alternative. Sites like d.tube and steemit.com and bitchute.com are offering this. Getting major video producers with a following on YouTube to use your alternative platform is how you get enough viewers to achieve critical mass. They won't come if they can't get paid.
Now there's a problem here, because the average YouTube channel suffering from demonetization is a right-wing political channel, and attracting too many of them is a great way to make no one else want to come to your platform. These aren't the only video producers who are suffering from demonetization; the most egregious case I know of is science education channel CodysLab[1], which has been barred from uploading new videos a couple times on account of violating youtube's content guidelines for microwaving crickets to show that crickets are too small to be hurt by microwave radiation, and using black powder explosives.
A federated network might be better able to handle this problem, giving the right-wing creators a platform on some instances, but not on others. But if peertube offers no monetization options, then it will never compete with YouTube.
attracting too many of them is a great way to make no one else want to come to your platform
Perhaps that's a feature and not a bug. After all, judging by the last US election such people are in a slight minority anyway.
And why is YouTube whacking those channels specifically - because left wing social justice types systematically try to wipe out conservative thought wherever they find it. It's a private sector form of the behavior communist countries always see. Do you want those people following you to the next place you host your videos? Or would you rather leave them to sit and stew in their nicely whitewashed PC groupthink?
I think the real issue with your idea is that revenue streams from ads aren't that large, and anyway, advertisers are extremely sensitive to being targeted by witch hunts, which is why you see left wingers engage in so many of them against advertisers. I'd leave video authors to arrange for their own sponsorships; they can surely do it if the right messaging framework is in place.
There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong committment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
So while some small percent of Reddit’s average users moved over, a very large percent of its witches did. Sometimes the witchcraft was nothing worse than questioning Reddit’s political consensus. Other times, it was harassment, hate groups, and creepy porn.
When one platform (youtube) starts banning/demonetizing certain people, and you create a new platform that guarantees free expression, that new platform is going to get swarmed by the people who were banned by the incumbent platform. If YouTube's methid of selecting people be banned/demonetized is reasonably in line with what the average viewer dislikes (no necessarily what they would want banned), then when the new platform gets flooded with content from those banned from YouTube, the average viewer will find little to like on the platform.
Many people made their living off of YouTube ad revenue. Still do. You might be right that it's not the best source of income for the typical producer.
However, right now, a lot of producers are angry at YouTube for their changes to their ad policy. Now's the time to drive a large number of big content producers off of YouTube and onto your new platform, because they are actively searching for a new one. But they're motivated by the loss of their ad revenue, so they're not going to be interested in a platform that doesn't pay out ad revenue at all, that doesn't address their concerns.
Is advertising really necessary? Most youtubers are making more money from donations than they are from ad revenue. Many of them also do paid promotions that pay better than youtube ads. The ad rate is really bad. And you can get demonetized for all sorts of random things that have nothing to do with politics
The bigger problem is network effects. If you don't post your videos on youtube, no one will ever see them.
Youtube is more than just a tool, it's a store of culture almost. Imagine Youtube suddenly disappeared. A wealth of information and video would be lost, like rare videos which are only on youtube. Sure, someone somewhere will have a copy but on the whole you can't access them seamlessly like you can with Youtube.
Of late I have began to think this is too much power for a company to hold. I trust Youtube to not fuck up so bad that all videos are gone, but I would sleep a bit sounder at night if it was decentralised.
If you're worried about rare videos going away, don't just watch them on YouTube. Archive them yourself. You are the one who sees value in them, so do your part to keep their storage decentralized. Just a thought.
I never understand this “If you’re so worried, take action” argument. We all have concerns about thousands of things. I’m concerned about kids’ education in the whole world, I’m concerned about animals getting killed for fun, I’m concerned about Comcast being my only realistic ISP, I’m concerned about thousands more such things. I should be able to have and show concern even if I can’t actively do much about them due to my focus on other, even greater concerns (even if they’re selfish concerns like taking care of my family).
The original post said, "(YouTube is) a store of culture almost. A wealth of information and video would be lost, like rare videos which are only on youtube."
Archiving a store of culture and almost infinite rare videos is definitely not a straightforward and easy solution. Yes, you can save few interesting videos locally. But, that's not the point of the original post.
a completely straightforward and easy solution to the problem
But it isn't, due to the lack of coordination or standards. That's why protocols get established in the first place; without them, valuable stuff tends to get lost.
>> I never understand this “If you’re so worried, take action” argument.
I never understood the lazy people of the world who want someone ELSE to make everything better for them. The greater your concern, the more likely no-one else cares more about it than you.
Saving a copy of rare footage on Youtube is literally a couple clicks and letting it save in the background while you sit on your butt watching it.
I'm glad to hear that all the problems in the world you see, you take charge and solve them. On your own. Always!
The original post said, "(YouTube is) a store of culture almost. A wealth of information and video would be lost, like rare videos which are only on youtube."
So, they should just save ALL the videos on YouTube that they think represent the culture of our times. Got it. If they think there are few petabytes of videos that are worthy of archiving, they should buy storage for them all. If they don't do so, then they are lazy. They weren't talking about one video, mind you.
ps, this comment of mine is not as polite as I want my comments to be. But, when you're calling people lazy and sitting on their butt, I think it's okay to write a not-so-polite comment.
>> ps, this comment of mine is not as polite as I want my comments to be. But, when you're calling people lazy and sitting on their butt, I think it's okay to write a not-so-polite comment.
Oh I understand. I held back a bit too. You're being an extremist with your comments about taking charge, and Always! And no, I don't propose the OP download the whole of what he sees as "culture to be preserved" from YouTube. Why do you insist on taking a simple concept to such an extreme?
We can all try to change the world a little bit. I'd prefer the world to be certain ways. While I can't make it that way for everyone I can set an example and influence the small area around me. In a similar way, if someone thinks a set of videos should be preserved they can save some themself - that does not mean they become an archivist for the Smithsonian.
While I was being a bit snarky, the sitting on their butt comment was meant to point out that a person watching YouTube is literally doing that. Most things people want to change do take more effort than that.
I'm taking the time to write for the same reason - I don't like when people are such extremists in their thinking (all or nothing) so I'm hoping to change a small part of the world (you) in a tiny way. If you still think people can't be the change they want I'll offer you this:
I don't want just me to have these videos, I want them to be on the internet for everybody to have whichever video they want. Just stashing away MY videos is a tad bit selfish but work, no doubt.
Also leaves us with no way to discover future "favorites"
There are two course of action for dealing with the problem. One is for every single person who is concerned about a particular tiny subset of the innumerable rare videos out there to store them personally, and then somehow let anyone else in the world know they have them.
The other is to come up with a collective solution, like a p2p solution.
I think the latter solution is about a million times as likely to work.
You can copy the link to your favorites playlist and give it to youtube-dl. And it will automatically download all of them (or at least the last dozen.) I find a decent percent of my favorited videos get removed with time, so this is worth doing regularly.
Yeah that's nice but telling individuals to be curators doesn't help them solve any coordination problems, and no individual can reasonably curate more than a tiny sliver of what they might find valuable, not least because there is great content that a person might value but has yet to become aware of.
I clicked around some videos on some random server I chose from the list, and in many cases a video's preview picture has nothing to do with the video. As in, it never visibly appears in the actual video. Or it's the very first frame and not representative of the rest of the video. That opens up all sorts of clickbait/abuse issues.
I don't know how YouTube deals with generating a representative preview image, but the result is certainly better.
YouTube absolutely has not solved this issue. Personally, I feel like it has gotten worse in the recent past. Here's a small compilation of fake thumbnails which took me less than a minute to collect: https://imgur.com/a/mjlkM
It is possible to report videos with misleading thumbnails on YouTube, but those reports seem to be ignored, proven by those videos having millions of views.
This was a big problem on YouTube too. Their solution wasn't to find a better thumbnail, but to change the incentives. Basically they now promote videos based on minutes watched instead of clicks (also factoring in subsequent videos watched). If the thumbnail is misleading many users will quickly stop watching, leading YouTube to stop suggesting the video.
YouTube now even allows uploaders to upload any preview image. The result are attention grabbing and sensationalising, but rarely outright misleading
> I don't know how YouTube deals with generating a representative preview image
After uploading a video, YouTube will present you with 3 choices for the thumbnail. These are single frames, chosen with some randomness from the video (to prevent people intentionally inserting click-bait frames at some fixed position).
However, some people are considered Trust Worthy by the Algorithm. Those can upload arbitrary click-baity images to be used as thumbnails for their videos.
Definitely not all people. I have an 11 year old account with no copyright or community guidelines strikes. YouTube says "Your account isn't eligible at this time" under "Custom thumbnails". As far as I know, it was never eligible.
This was an issue at one point with YouTube as well. Heck, it's still an issue, with most thumbnails designed with emoting people, arrows, and words designed to increase click rates.
However, this kind of things _does_ increase click rates for these videos. For a platform designed to get views, is that really a bad thing?
The users will feel serially ripped off after they have seen three such videos, in which case it is already too late. Too late to convince them to ever come back to a platform with such an offering.
> Too late to convince them to ever come back to a platform with such an offering
It's the exact same problem on YouTube with clickbait thumbnails and titles. It doesn't frustrate people off the entire platform, just the channels that are repeat offenders.
It still possible for creators to get paid without built-in monetization. Sponsorships, patreon, etc.
Agencies will emerge to represent popular YouTubers who move to other platforms if there is sufficient advertiser demand for the (presumably sizable) audience drawn to the content.
In fact, it's probably better to decouple monetization from distribution, at least initially. It's another layer on top. We are just beginning to standardize social protocols, let's let them develop naturally.
There's also bitchute, d.tube, dlive.io, the latter two being on the steem network. dlive supports live streaming so I think its gaining a lot of traction.
add LBRY.io to the list. I wonder if anyone's developing a syndicator for posting their videos to all of these sites. It's getting pretty difficult to 1) keep awareness of every venue as they come out and 2) manually syndicate content across all of them too. Having all these d_apps installed on a single PC take a toll on resources too.
The PeerTube FAQ directly states that they do not.[0] They give the reasoning (with some numbers) that small to medium sized creators are better off getting community support through patreon or similar.
An increasing number of subcommunities have learned to rely on sponsors and patreon because YouTube demonetizes most of their videos. Meanwhile YouTube's three strike system is a constant threat to channels operating on fair use (reviewers etc) or producing content that YouTube's algorithms flag as showing content violating guidelines.
There's plenty of content creators that would love to go anywhere else, but all alternatives fail to attract viewers.
If it’s low cost to run a server (<$100/year) then just the censorship (or maybe just fuckaroundary and bother is a better term than censorship).
I got a simple Linux host on a cpanel admined shared server a long time ago for a random purpose. But it’s been very useful just to host stuff rather than bother with whatever free service exists.
It’s not strong enough to host this or mastodon or other peer networks, but I think it would be worthwhile for me to pay to have this flexibility.
All of the creators I follow either do it for free and fun, or some combination of patreon plugs and trinkets you can buy from them. Ads are not the only way for creators to find value in creating.
Youtube became a crap platform in the search for the $$. Things like recommended videos used to be related to the video you just watched but now its whatever fail army is. I would like to see a new platform where monetization via ads and UX abuse doesn't exist because the experience is just awful now.
One developer or sysadmin running an instance can support hundreds of non-technical users per server. This is a model that's already validated by mastodon, which has >1M registered users across thousands of servers (and ~40k weekly active users)
And who writes on Mastodon? Mostly devs or Trump? Maybe Obama? Ellen? No? So no one will use it, ever. I'm not against technology as it is great, but looking on this as a normal user it's not appealing to me. Mastodon is like old fashion phpBB forums 15 years ago, closed groups who talk with each other. ;)
Mastodon will need to find business model sooner or later as internet isn't free as in beer because beer costs money and you can't handle 100m users with donations.
People still need to pay for it. FSF would also die of hunger if it were not for people donating them money they have to earn first... so nothing is free.
I do, though not too intensively. You are right about the difficulty of the economic problem, but I remember spending lots of time setting up a new thing called Linux to operate a small relay over dial-up when most people were using proprietary systems like Compuserve, so it's OK that the new technology is kind of slow or difficult. The important thing (IMHO) is that it be comprehensible and consistent, because it's easier to build the user interface and speed it up once it's already working.
Yes, but so called "social media" isn't about installing anything to operate with. Twitter blow up the scene because it was super easy to start with and start sharing short sentences. In Mastadon you need to find a proper community, signup and start reading, but there is not interesting content there, no celebrities, no NASA, no Musk, no news magazines there is nothing that attracts typical users. But this is just my opinion. Until someone figure out a way to make Mastodon a one network to rule them all nothing will change.
Much LOVE to D.tube A true alternative for monetizing your content. (atleast thats the impression i get) and isnt ipfs tottaly opensource? (the file system where the content is hosted)
Can anyone comment on how this works space-wise? Does that mean that each node will carry a copy of the whole database? Is there some geography-based sharding or something?
Cause I won't run a node of that if that means I'll need some petabytes of space and an awfully large bandwidth.
As a server admin you may subscribe to other servers to have their videos presented on your server as well, but those remote servers would be in charge of seeding the content (each server is an actual Bittorrent tracker, it seems).
The subscription system is not ready just yet, it should be implemented in the coming weeks/month. If some people feel like contributing code… :-)
Unfortunately these things don't work because the general public needs something simple, centralised, rich in content, and which has the momentum of actual people using it. Technology doesn't help, it's about timing it the right application at the right time.
I had a good laugh at that. Does anyone really think this service is going to be competitive in terms of privacy to what a centralized provider can do?
How and by what is content moderation applied to this?
If not at all- what does prevent the competition- from oploading content disapproved by society, and then smear the network as a host for pirated content, snuff and illegal pornography?
Is there some jury duty for everyone- so every third video, you must watch something flagged for moderation, and judge it?
Sounds like PeerTube is vulnerable to a sorts of denial of service attack from bad actors that would join and then limit the bandwidth to extreme amounts.
Hasn’t this been solved already in other P2P protocols? Couldn’t they have built upon an existing protocol that protected them against this?