I’m kind of sick of opening my tor browser everyday just for looking at important updates.
luckily if we get more people to join the fediverse, which RSS is an available option by default. in the future I might only need to just open my RSS feeds.
the problem is little to no content creators use the fediverse, even unaware that doing this is a good thing because of “First Mover Advantage”. on top of that, unlike that term doing this has no risks involved. you’re just expanding your audience.
People around the internet should ask their favorite youtubers and content creators to also use a Mastodon and Peertube account, maybe get them a crossposter software to do everything for them. if that exists.
like you and everyone else, I don’t want to rely on big social media corporations to connect with people.
I hope this message gets to somewhere, repost this or tell other’s to do the same.
Regarding asking content creators, especially youtubers, to use PeerTube, what is the easiest way to tell them an instance to use if they are not interested in hosting one themselves? I have thought about doing this for a couple shows I watch.
People around the internet should ask their favorite youtubers and content creators to also use a Mastodon and Peertube account, maybe get them a crossposter software to do everything for them. if that exists.
maybe link them to a hosting website that takes care of everything. you should see something like that in github Installation guides as they have easy methods of installing. or just copy and paste that github installation altogether.
edit; sorry I didn’t read that right, I’ll search a fitting one for them. it should be the main one peertube themselves host.
As someone who managed a PeerTube instance for a large YouTube channel I have to say the big problem is storage: how are you going to pay for storage that increases with each new video while the income is mostly the same? From a business point of view it’s a suicide.
Keep in mind content creators on YouTube produce many gigabytes/week. In a few years they would have to pay hundreds of dollars each week, even when they pause and not producing any new video, when they are getting less donations and so on.
Why should they invest so much money in a PeerTube instance? Only a premium pay-to-view service can justify it and you really need a high cost-to-produce-and-stream-the-video/minutes-of-video ratio to make it convenient, for example documentaries and not lazy records of hours of online debates.
How many GB are we really talking about per week here? Most instances seem to have costs of between 15 and 40€/month and some of them have over a TB of data…
Roughly ~20-80 GB/week resulting after a couple of years in ~100-200$/month
That’s huge! Who uploads so much they need 80GB :o
Have you taken into account that the final space occupied by a video includes several files transcoded at different resolutions?
I mean, yeah for sure but still that is a lot. It’s Twitch Replays or something (also no need to use 4k necessarilly).
Interesting, I’m researching on the best solution right now, if there is no way around this problem then peertube will simply never take off.
edit; I haven’t found anything yet, in fact I think only you have talked about this specific problem, It’s really late here I’m gonna sleep.
This has to have been discussed before right? Because yeah this is a very strong argument not to self-host. Naively I’m wondering if there can be archives backed by IPFS or something but that’s so much data it’s scary.
Indeed I opened the issue on PeerTube Github about IPFS years ago. No, IPFS alone doesn’t solve this, it would just be a way to make the federation more robust.
The only solution I can think of is the following: make PeerTube content creators able to “archive” their old videos, maybe automatically when they approach a storage limit. By “archiving” I mean the video files are deleted from the server but the video page with its comments remain. Before archiving the author is prompted to download the video files. If a user open the page of an archived video they can’t play it, instead a button is shown to ask the original author to reupload it. The user is then notified that the video is available again. At that point is up to the content creator to reupload the old video and keep it online for a while. One could also reupload the video files because their video is relevant again (think about old news that can return interesting).
