this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
171 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
265 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's much more banal. YouTube is simply a monopoly abusing its market power. People would use alternatives if they existed.
They exist!
They are not alternatives because they don't have content. Streaming video is fairly trivial. Having content is not.
Streaming video is NOT trivial.
Video files are big. There's so much costs involved in hosting, compression, transcoding, distributing across CDNs, and serving, that "free" tiers on those services are just not feasible long-term. Even a multi-billion corporation like Google/Alphabet was only willing to burn cash on that for so long.
PeerTube offloads distributing and serving across the viewers, so the more popular a video becomes, the more "CDN" its viewers provide.
It only has the "downside" of less control and the inability of the platform to insert ads, so all promotions are directly controlled by the content creators themselves, who "in exchange" only need a minimal server to host their videos.
While it's been hard to find good stats, something to the effect of several hundreds of hours of video footage is uploaded to YouTube every minute.
Processing, storing, and streaming that is not remotely a trivial task.
I'd say content is trivial, but having the sheer variety of content that youtube has is not. Odysee has some decent stuff on there- even some decent original stuff that isn't just a mirror of someone's youtube channel. But it's not going to have the same niche, specific content I might look up on youtube.
They are for me at least since all of my favourite Youtuber upload videos on Odysee and Peertube too.
Are those actually hosting videos or just accessing YouTube? Because for the latter, most people still want the algorithm and the interaction/support to the creators they follow
All of those host videos themselves, they're not like piped or invidious.
Oh that’s nice. Are many YouTubers cross posting there?
No one is really posting content to any of the alternatives really. Maybe if you are really into crypto-hype or other very niche topics, there will be a little content. But not much.
Hardly any, even though Odysee has an option to auto upload whatever you're uploading to YT on their platform.
Personally I can't understand doomsrolers that "prefer" the "algorithm".