So Elon gutted Twitter, and people jumped ship to Mastodon. Now spez did… you know… and we’re on Lemmy and Kbin. Can we have a YouTube to PeerTube exodus next? With the whole ad-pocalypse over there, seems like Google is itching for it.

    • Sparking@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The other thing to keep in mind is that youtube (and twitch, and shudders quora), with all its problems, does share revenue with creators on the platform, instead of treating them as free labor.

      I would love to see it, but I dont think we are there yet. No impetus to switch combined with much more expensive tech. I would also antipate dmca to turn the whole thing into a mess. But one day we’ll get there hopefully.

      • Art [he/him] 🌈@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, that was why my comment was more aimed at personal hosting, as opposed to a shared one.

        Say, I don’t know, a known figure like jackscepticeye (to name a big streamer) hiring a server and creating his own instance of a fediverse software that allows him to host all his videos, where he gets to decide which ad-provider to use, how to control subscription tiers, and so on.

        Even a smaller creator could do this, as costs would scale with popularity but so would revenue.

        I’m not sure if PeerTube can do this, or if it would have to be a completely different software, though.

        As for DMCAs, that would be the responsibility of each creator, of course. They would no longer have the “protection” of corporations like Youtube and Twitch.

        Self-management is a big ordeal.

        It’s one of those pro/con things each person must weigh upon when making a decision: “sure, Twitch/Youtube takes a piece of the pie and gets pushy with copyright, but I don’t have to deal with servers or DMCAs or paying the hosting directly”.

    • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hosting and bandwidth for videos has a big cost.

      Plus it’s computationally expensive. YouTube has entire data centers filled with servers using custom silicon to encode ingested videos into nearly every resolution/framerate and codec they serve, so that different clients get the most efficient option for their quality settings and supported codecs, no matter what the original uploader happened to upload. Granted, that workflow mainly makes sense because of bandwidth costs, but the high quality of the user experience depends on that backend.

      • Art [he/him] 🌈@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fascinating! I guess I should have known, because I use yt-dlp a lot and see each video has multiple formats available, but multimedia streaming is not my forte so I never put much thought into the technicalities.

        Pardon the ignorant follow-up question: it doesn’t encode on-the-fly, right? It encodes upon uploading the source, then it keeps a copy of each format?

        • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I understand it, it ingests an uploaded video and automatically encodes it in a bunch of different quality settings in h.264, then, if the video is popular enough to justify the computational cost of encoding into AV1 and VP9, they’ll do that when the video reaches something like 1000 views. And yes, once encoded they just keep the copies so that it doesn’t have to be done again.

          Here’s a 2-year-old blog post where YouTube describes some of the technical challenges.

          As that blog post explains, when you’re running a service that ingests 500 hours of user submitted video every minute, you’ll need to handle that task differently than how, for example, Netflix does (with way more video minutes being served, but a comparatively tiny amount of original video content to encode, where bandwidth efficiency becomes far more important than encoding computational efficiency).

          • Art [he/him] 🌈@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks a lot for the explanation and the link.

            I asked about that because I thought if it’s a one-time thing, then the uploader would be the one using their own computer to encode. Maybe they’re given a desktop software or a set configurations for, say, ffmpeg. It would certainly be less attractive than to just upload it and let the platform handle it.

            • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I think it’s doable to distribute that compute burden if each channel owner has a desktop CPU laying around to encode a bunch of video formats, but lots of people are doing stuff directly on their phones, and I don’t think a phone CPU/GPU would be able to process a significant amount of video without heat/power issues.