Slashdot Mirror
PeerTube, the 'Decentralized YouTube,' Succeeds In Crowdfunding (quariety.com)
A crowdfunded project, known as "PeerTube," has blown through its initial goal with 53,100 euros collected in forty-two days. The project aims to be "a fully decentralized version of YouTube, whose computer code is freely accessible and editable, and where videos are shared between users without relying on a central system." The goal is PeerTube to officially launch by October. Quariety reports: PeerTube relies on a decentralized and federative system. In other words, there is no higher authority that manages, broadcasts and moderates the content offered, as is the case with YouTube, but a network of "instances." Created by one or more administrators, these communities are governed according to principles specific to each of them. Anyone can freely watch the videos without registering, but to upload a video, you must choose from the list of existing instances, or create your own if you have the necessary technical knowledge. At the moment, 141 instances are proposed. Most do not have specifics, but one can find communities centered on a theme or open to a particular region of the world. In all, more than 4,000 people are currently registered on PeerTube, for a total of 338,000 views for 11,000 videos. The project does not display ads, unlike YouTube. "In terms of monetization, we wanted to make a neutral tool," says Pouhiou, communication officer for Framasoft, the origin of PeerTube. The site will rely on a "support" button at the start, but "people will be able to code their own monetization system" in the future.
Wouldn't this just be a "youtube" front-end for torrents?
I have hosted popular podcasts and have had videos into the high 100,000s of views. Been thinking it might be time to do a new one after a couple of years off.
I'm in! Registering now....
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Those guys are going to raise millions for yet another fail to deliver crownfunding scam. But a decentralized, censoship resistant youtube alternative???
This exists already, it's called dtube.
https://d.tube/
You can even get paid for uploading content to it today.
https://steemit.com/trending/d...
So why bother to contribute to a kickstarter for yet another one?
It's so simple.
youtube-dl is powerful and elegant. Teamed up with mpv or smplayer and it's all gravy.
The author is also dumb
--
federative system. In other words, there is no higher authority that manages, broadcasts and moderates the content offered, as is the case with YouTube, but a network
--
Someone does know what federation is, and therefore contradicts themselves. Apparently they haven't even heard of the federal government, which is the "higher authority", above the states.
A federal system, or federation, is when previously separate entities establish a centralized authority, for common purposes. Examples would be the United States, which were separate states and then established the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The EU is following a similar pattern.
Database federation is when you had separate database servers, but then you establish one server as the central authority all queries go to, and it then delegates parts of those queries to the servers that have the relevant data.
If you’re at a university, and if you’ve got student workers in your IT group, you might want to keep an eye out for any unexplained VMs which might appear.
#DeleteChrome
Sesta DMCA and plenty of other laws will run everyone off of the platform once the inevitable legal issues arise.
It will be relegated to a dark place on the web with a bed reputation where law enforcement will take YOU to jail for accidentally hosting something they don't like.
Good luck explaining the problem to a jury in such a way that they will not think you are up to no good. We have long since forgotten the principles of innocent until proven guilty and have fallen back to the old day of guilty until proven innocent and just exercising your legal rights is more often then not regarded as a sign of guilt on it's own. I do not expect this to go very far before it implodes due to external forces.
That should be "someone doesn't know"
This will in no way become just a front end for torrent sites. Nah. :D
It's interesting from the standpoint of disseminating information people want to give out freely and not be at the mercy of a centralized server, but typically the altruistic part will get dwarfed by the pirates pr0n.
The lack of monetization will keep both very high quality original content away from it as well as bottom-feeder clickbait and top ten lists.
Speaking as someone who makes part of his living off of YouTube, it doesn't really hold an interest for me, but if I was not concerned with monetizing my videos directly, it sounds interesting.
It is just so ripe for abuse that it will be interesting to see if legitimate players can even function in that environment. But if one of the 'instances' they speak of can be moderated, people could exist within the instance relatively harmoniously.
Each one more magnificent than the last.
Um, what?
Where do you think the video that is referenced by the tag is going to come from?
...?
If this is "decentralized YouTube" then SVN and CVS are "decentralized version control". Every time people slap the word "decentralized" something (hi Diaspora) they mean something akin to sharding systems common to an MMO where you choose a server to play on and can only interact with other characters on that server -- which was done for performance reasons.
Git, on the other hand, is truly decentralized. No one's repo is more central than anyone else's by design. Doing social media this way is completely possible, but no one's done it yet...;)
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Anybody can host videos with a free or cheap web site
Go ahead and link the free or cheap website where I can host hundreds of gigabytes of 4k content. Make sure the site has the capability to stream that video in 4k to hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously.
[a href="blah.mp4"]blah video[/a]. I don't understand why this project exists, except that perhaps some (many) people simply don't understand how the web works.
Lump yourself into that group.
This isn't about the video player frontend. Obviously there are unlimited choices for playing a video. It's about providing a distributed *backend* (hosting) to store the video data. Which in spite of your claim above is a technically challenging expensive endeavor.
The same place the HTML/JS/CSS and images come from. It's just another asset.
Search and discovery, channels, subscriptions, playlists, etc.
I think we can all agree that a Javascript variant is not something that should be used to make a server and yet, this is exactly what they used to write a server.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Get a million views at once, maybe. Get a million views over x time? Who cares.
Sites should absolutely just provide torrent links for their shit.
> US does not have higher authority over all the different laws, that states and even counties have
The Constitution diagrees with you:
--
US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--
For more information
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...
The other side of that is the enumerated powers and 10th amendment. Federal law is absolutely supreme over state law, and city ordinances subordinate even to state law. However, federal law is only authorized (and therefore valid) on certain specific topics. Federal law is never subordinate to state law - it's supreme. Only if it's not law it at all, if it's null and void by being unconstitutional, does it not override state law.
BitChute uses a torrent-like distributed peer hosting mechanism to help with scalability.
It doesn't work great, even though I really want BitChute to succeed. Sadly, too many videos just stop streaming and you're left waiting an eternity for it to buffer.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It's also an awful name choice, unless they're hoping to be the go-to choice for "water-sports" enthusiasts.
YouPeer would have been worse though, so at least there's that.
The same place the HTML/JS/CSS and images come from. It's just another asset.
Dude are you trolling me? If so, great job because you had me riled up my entire drive home.
HTML5 provides a video playback mechanism? The method of playing the video is completely irrelevant to the technical challenge here. The issue storage and bandwidth.
Do you think replicating Youtube is just about as easy as plunking the video onto whatever website you want? Do you have any idea what sort of resources it takes to host petabytes of video and have the capacity to stream HD or 4k video to hundreds of thousands of people simultaneously? Do you understand what sort of development and admin it takes to build a system like that?
Are you aware of what it would cost an individual to host videos from wherever their other web assets are located? You know the difference between a 10k HTML page and a 10GB 4k video clip? Just a factor of 1,000,000x larger that must be transferred at 50+ megabytes / second, to thousands of people at the same time?
They're talking federated system architectures, not government.
There is no centralized authority, each system is autonomous and interacts with other systems based upon agreed standards/exchanges.
It's not about the bandwidth. Bittorrent solves that. It's about revenue.
Look at the guys who went on the recent "day of action" free speech march. Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon, has a monetized YouTube channel with 800k subscribers and a Patreon that nets him over $8,000/month. And he complains that he is being "censored" because he keeps getting banned from Twitter for breaking their very permissive rules, which just earns him the freeze peach martyr achievement and unlocks more revenue.
He might post some stuff on this service but would never just abandon YouTube because he, like most of them, is in it for the money. That's fine, but those looking for marketplace of ideas utopia night be disappointed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
> There is no centralized authority, each system is autonomous and interacts with other systems based upon agreed standards/exchanges.
That's called peer to peer.
Here's the diagram of the federated architecture reference model. Note the MA authority:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
This is my thinking. Who pays for all this? It's a question I ask of any decentralized service. Also another thing that seems messy, usernames.
"Science is the power of man"
IIRC the original use was the Roman dominated "Federati", which in practice meant allies or associates, but where the policy came from Rome. These were groups that Rome didn't actually conqueror for one reason or another, but dominated. Mainly there were Germanics, but that seems to have been "that's where the situation developed". They were nominally independent of Rome, and would meet together in councils to decide on common policy, when never happened to contradict Roman policy (though they could be quite slow on agreeing to some Roman policies).
And here I'm elaborating a bit beyond the edge of my knowledge, so I'd better stop. But federated doesn't mean free of outside control, it seems to mean more free of explicit outside control. This makes me wonder about the US federal government which started life in debt to Alexander Hamilton (Chase-Manhattan bank).
Given that, the choice of words is a bit ominous, but not necessarily incorrect.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thanks for that.
I see the connection there. They had been operating independently, and were *allowed* a degree of autonomy in local issues, but ultimately under the authority of Rome regarding foreign affairs etc. That matches up both with the states who formed a federal government and with IT systems and database usage, where each part is to some degree independent insofar as its internal operation, but disciplined by the central authority in matters of relations with other entities (interstate commerce clause, etc).
Personally, I think the *idea* of a federal system of government, as outlined in the Constitution, makes sense. It local autonomy to both meet the needs of local people and to try out different ideas, while also getting the benefits of a large, coordinated, stable coalition. In order to maintain that federal approach, wherein both individual states and the united government have their proper place, one must however carefully guard the 10th amendment. The 10th and the enumerated powers clause, which limit the power of DC politicians, have been significantly eroded starting with the wheat cases. I think those were decided that way solely to avoid a power struggle between the court and the Congress and president - there is no reasonable logic which supports the decision. It essentially makes the enumerated powers clause and 10th amendment impotent. That violates a basic legal principle that all laws and parts of laws mean *something*. The 10th was passed for some reason, and has some meaning. The wheat cases essentially ruled that it means nothing, that it has no actual effect.
"4K"? I guess you'll have to ask Pouët where they get the bandwidth to host 4096 byte videos.
You can do it cheaply by basically having a web-app front-end to a torrent and the app streams the data from the torrent.
Yes, you just restated exactly what's talked about in TFA.
Who pays for all this? It's a question I ask of any decentralized service.
The peers pay for it. You pay for it. You pay for it through your ISP bill and the storage space and electricity to run your computer.
Eventually these channels will get enough traction to be noticed and shut down.
Yeah, that never happens. The only reason videos get removed is for copyright or sexist, racist content. Nothing has ever been taken down for having a controversial political slant.
Already smaller channels who tried to push a pro-worker narrative and agenda found themselves de-monitized
De-monetized != censored. De-monetized videos are still accessible in all the same ways as monetized videos.
I think you could use a lesson in Youtube's revenue model. Big companies pay Youtube to advertise their products with Youtube content. If those companies say they don't want their products advertised with political, etc. content, that's their prerogative (and yes they did that).
Despite the fact that Youtube gets zero revenue for those de-monetized videos, they still host them, which is awful nice of them. These creators are free to monetize their videos however they want, on their own.