• DarkenLM@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think the Fediverse can really provide an alternative to YouTube. The infrastructure required for the amount of data constantly being served and processed is prohibitly expensive.

    • Teon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe not today, and never at the scale that YouTube is right now (that’s not a bad thing), but never say never.
      5 years ago no one saw a psychopath buying and actively destroying Xitter.
      Technology changes quickly. It won’t be long until 10TB HDDs are standard fare, 8G is everywhere, electric cars are 40% of the market etc.
      Anything is a possibility and humans get smarter and more innovative. I know this because humans can carry a small computer in their pockets.

      • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree. I think a big part of this move is that they know that YouTube isn’t going to last for too much longer as the only service that does exactly what they do because it will be soon be profitable for many others that don’t have the same level of scale and backing by Alphabet. This is a cash-out.

      • Oka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        All it takes is 1 developer to add video support to lemmy, and make videos defederalized, then we could have different videos in different communities, we could have video-only communities, and those would be youtube-like.

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think code is the main problem here, it is the money to invest in the server space and bandwidth for it.

          • Rhllor@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that is all neglecting the platform effect. People are on YouTube because the stuff they want to watch is there and the stuff is there because there is an audience. Because there is audience, people are willing to dump their marketing budget there. Because there is a revenue split of these marketing budgets, people are there publishing stuff. And so on and so on.

            You can have the greatest platform from a technical point of view. If nobody is publishing good stuff, nobody will care.

          • limerod@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to forget the moderation problem. You would effectively need to verify each video for bad stuff, copyright infringement, or risk getting sued for noncompliance.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you saying that it costs a lot of money to setup a video streaming service that stores terrabytes of data? From what I hear that should all just be free!

      • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If only we had to pay for the service, the service was good and we had our privacy. We pay to pad googles shitty anti consumer, anti free internet pockets, so they can make the service worse and they data mine everything.

      • ahriboy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bluesky is slowly gaining more users after multiple Xitter announcements. Xitter is going to be Netflix of social media.