After trying to introduce PeerTube to a bunch of people that was complaining about Youtube and asking for an alternative to it, I concluded that people DON'T want an alternative to Youtube. They just want to whine about things.
In fact, people don't want any alternatives to any services at all. They just want to whine about things.
@Ocean22 I never whined about Windows when I was 7 because I didn't know about computers back then. I didn't either until 13 or 14 because before that, I only knew Windows and I thought it's only alternative was Mac OS. So for me, there wasn't anything better.
Now it's a whole different story... But many years have passed since then, and I had to study things some people will never understand in order to understand the situation we live on.
@Skoll3 Uuuuhh... something really stupid, to be honest. Mostly that "it's something that has been tried billions of times" (yeah, no), and also something about it's moderation that I already explained to them. But they still ignored me.
So I told them to "dream on" if they want a big company to offer them something good for free, left a few links for anyone that might be interested, and then gave up.
@miwilc I'm not saying YT is not great, nobody said it's not. It's just that it has a lot of corporative policies that harm the content creators. Taking down videos that suggest other platforms as an alternative, for instance. Among many other things (the copyright filters, for instance).
That's why we need to be in control of our content.
@robots peertube can and will be sued for DMCA and as far as I can see(?) it has no polices for dealing with it. Which is worrisome.
>corporative policies that harm the content creators
That's vague statements, anyway it allows YT to exist without interfering with legal matters of it's users
As far as taking down videos goes, they only do that when it's a 30 second video with a plain text.
@miwilc PeerTube is just a software, I don't see why it will get a strike for DMCA. You probably mean the instance owners that might get copyrighted content in their platforms. Sure thing, that can happen with Mastodon too, or Diaspora, or any platform that can be used to upload multimedia files... that's why moderation should be a thing if you plan on running your own, open instance, right?
@miwilc But have in mind that any platform that allows their users to upload content can also be sued too for copyright infringement, as I already stated.
The important thing to avoid problems is to have active and strong moderation. Even if some idiot uploads copyrighted content, if you remove that before 12 hours the LEA has no time to move all the paperwork to fine you before the problem is gone.
@miwilc Why not? You can still have your sponsorship, your donations, and all that. Plus, you get away from all the imposed rules that bring your content down. I don't see the downsides of it... To me, it looks more like people wants Youtube, but they don't want to change, you know...
@miwilc As I'm saying, Youtube is literally removing videos that promote other platforms. Aside from that, there is the dreaded copyright filter that is taking down videos even if you are the copyright owner yourself. It's terrible! They also changed the rules to monetized your videos, which also caused a lot of controversy in the past.
The ads don't give you enough money anyways. Most popular channels works with sponsorships and/or donations in patreon, rather than ads. Adblock, etc.
@miwilc I understand that aside from that, they still have millions of subscriptions there and that they don't want to radically change from one to another platform. That's fine! Just have it as a secondary thing, introduce it to your followers slowly, add some exclusive content there to attract them, etc.
@miwilc But you are still here.
It's going to work and even if it didn't work, we'll make it work because we need it to work. We can't keep having these centralized services anymore simply because it's inconvenient. And you can say whatever you want about Youtube being great and defend it all you want, but you know that we all want a better alternative. And that it's not going to happen in any other way.
@miwilc >the main selling point is the ads that you can make money from.
That wasn't always the case, though. YouTube was already a huge site before the advertisers jumped on board. And anyways, that leads to a toxic scenario where the advertisers get to decide what is and is not permissible content. Certain content being forbidden because of advertisers wishes does indeed create a need for an alternative. An example from history, look at HBO vs network TV.
@miwilc It must be boring, I know... I bet they will add report functions so other users can report this kind of content.
Additionally, most sites include an option for the DMCA to send a notification if any of its content violates the copyright laws so they can remove it before getting their ass fined, by the way.
@thor Sure, I'd love Youtube to drop the copyright filters and their stupid imposed rules, like not promoting other platforms, etc.
Will they listen to me and do it? No. Why? Because that's not profitable for them. I know what they want, but it's not going to happen ever.
Google runs services for free and people pretend they are good samaritans or something. They forget that Google is a corporation and that they bought Youtube from someone else.
@louis Yes, although it is still in development (Stage 1 has already been funded). Basically you can make your own instance, host videos there, and the videos will be streamed to the users using BitTorrent and other P2P protocols (the project's page will explain it better than me). Users can interact with each other and write comments and all that. Every instance is federated through ActivityPub.