Fun fact, YouTube has backwards comparability for its video links, so https://youtube.com/w/dQw4w9WgXcQ will go to the same video (granted, it will change format to the up to date one, but it is one way to go to a yt video without URL arguments)
This is what I meant by the “non shortened” ones. If you’re using it through the app you can only press share to get the link and that’s how it comes when you press share. (Or if you press share on the website instead of copying the URL from the address bar.)
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don’t get me wrong there’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not exactly a vibrant community it’s basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
It’s not a “community” it’s a video server. I’m sharing video content I made.
I could open up the federation aspect and letting you and others comment, helping it to scale, but for now I chose not to.
There are PeerTube instances doing that though, i.e. federating, allowing comments from the instance, other instances, also content that is paid for. My instance though again is not like that.
I find it surprising that someone on Lemmy makes assumption about centralization and consequently homogenization. My instance does NOT try to reproduce YouTube yet I believe, I hope at least, does provide again potential “content” to viewers. It’s never going to be YouTube but for me that’s OK, in fact I would argue, that’s better.
Edit: initial comment made no reference to a “community” FWIW.
Call me back when the experience as a content creator is not a nightmare, the experience as a user browsing for content is not a nightmare, when it can handle the load of an even moderately popular video.
The issue with streaming video online is not a technical one; making a “clone” of youtube, anyone can do so (and indeed, peertube exists). The issue with streaming video online is that if it gets traction, you need a lot of bandwidth and processing power to make it available when it needs to be available. One-two instances and “hopping P2P picks up” does not cut it.
And, as usual when anyone says anything bad about peertube: the idea is great, but almost by construction it lacks what’s needed to be a valid replacement for centralized, yet HUGE existing platforms: traction, and a truckload of CDN-like instances that can handle the load. If someone putting highly anticipated content online could just “put” their video somewhere and send a link so people can watch it, immediately, and without issue, some would likely do so. Unfortunately, we’re very far from that yet.
Fun fact, YouTube has backwards comparability for its video links, so https://youtube.com/w/dQw4w9WgXcQ will go to the same video (granted, it will change format to the up to date one, but it is one way to go to a yt video without URL arguments)
Even better: https://youtu.be/PtSGclOlVmg
This is what I meant by the “non shortened” ones. If you’re using it through the app you can only press share to get the link and that’s how it comes when you press share. (Or if you press share on the website instead of copying the URL from the address bar.)
Even better: PeerTube or InternetArchive or (Web)Torrents but definitely not a Google website fueled by surveillance capitalism.
For a viewer: serious lack of content
For a creator: extremely unlikely to make a living
I want them to succeed but it’s an unfortunate position
Be the change you want to see. Here is my instance https://video.benetou.fr/ even if nobody cares, I tried.
Saying “be the change you want to see” doesn’t resolve any of the raised concerns.
You don’t think the link I give helps potential viewers by showing there is content out there?
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don’t get me wrong there’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not exactly a vibrant community it’s basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
It’s not a “community” it’s a video server. I’m sharing video content I made.
I could open up the federation aspect and letting you and others comment, helping it to scale, but for now I chose not to.
There are PeerTube instances doing that though, i.e. federating, allowing comments from the instance, other instances, also content that is paid for. My instance though again is not like that.
I find it surprising that someone on Lemmy makes assumption about centralization and consequently homogenization. My instance does NOT try to reproduce YouTube yet I believe, I hope at least, does provide again potential “content” to viewers. It’s never going to be YouTube but for me that’s OK, in fact I would argue, that’s better.
Edit: initial comment made no reference to a “community” FWIW.
Call me back when the experience as a content creator is not a nightmare, the experience as a user browsing for content is not a nightmare, when it can handle the load of an even moderately popular video.
The issue with streaming video online is not a technical one; making a “clone” of youtube, anyone can do so (and indeed, peertube exists). The issue with streaming video online is that if it gets traction, you need a lot of bandwidth and processing power to make it available when it needs to be available. One-two instances and “hopping P2P picks up” does not cut it.
And, as usual when anyone says anything bad about peertube: the idea is great, but almost by construction it lacks what’s needed to be a valid replacement for centralized, yet HUGE existing platforms: traction, and a truckload of CDN-like instances that can handle the load. If someone putting highly anticipated content online could just “put” their video somewhere and send a link so people can watch it, immediately, and without issue, some would likely do so. Unfortunately, we’re very far from that yet.
I did some live streams in the past. I share the link to my instance below. I can’t speak for large audiences.