Is PeerTube dead or is discoverability bad?
-
That seems... like a poor choice.
-
Honestly if they could make the mastodon sign up not give people options initially I think it is effectively a better twitter.
-
they seem to only give accounts to creators
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I'll get in trouble for saying it, but I think that PeerTube is for video channels what Lemmy should be for communities. It should be that if you want to start or moderate a community, then you sign up to Lemmy, but if you just want to interact with one, you use a user account provided by software that's fully geared up around users (e.g. Mastodon).
Ignoring for the moment that Lemmy's federation model hasn't been widely adopted, and that comments from Mastodon that appear in Lemmy often have annoying Hashtag / Mention spam, my fantasy version of a post in a Lemmy community would look something like https://tilvids.com/w/wjTD7fp9qy4KmTkBdSoWyc, which was created by a PeerTube user, but has been commented on and voted for by users from Mastodon, Sharkey, PieFed, other PeerTube instances, and MBIN.
Amongst those subscribers, commenters, and voters should be Lemmy users, of course. In this thread, it feels like PeerTube is being criticised by people who want to use it in a way that it's not designed for, because they can't interact with it from their Lemmy account. If inter-op was better, there'd be no need to create a new account anywhere, and it would have a network effect - the channels that people are trying to discover would already have been brought in by other users, and findable through a conventional Lemmy search. Also, the votes and comments from Lemmy users that are currently going to whoever takes a PeerTube video and posts it in the likes of [email protected], would instead be going to original creator. This would also aid discovery (since people would be more likely to see the channel in 'all'), and might have also some incentivising influence on the creator.
Basically, I blame Lemmy.
Peertube is older than Lemmy though.
What you suggest isn't actually a bad idea, but if that was the goal then they shouldn't even pretend to support user accounts only channel accounts, channel accounts wouldn't need to be able to like/comment/subscribe either. They wouldn't have to bother with their UI rendering likes/dislikes/comments, they wouldn't need buttons to subscribe, and they wouldn't need a mobile app either. It's a good idea, just be a video backend and only support the embedded video player (as it appears on Mastodon), but it doesn't appear like that was their goal.
-
Peertube is older than Lemmy though.
What you suggest isn't actually a bad idea, but if that was the goal then they shouldn't even pretend to support user accounts only channel accounts, channel accounts wouldn't need to be able to like/comment/subscribe either. They wouldn't have to bother with their UI rendering likes/dislikes/comments, they wouldn't need buttons to subscribe, and they wouldn't need a mobile app either. It's a good idea, just be a video backend and only support the embedded video player (as it appears on Mastodon), but it doesn't appear like that was their goal.
I think they still need a separate user account. For one thing, a PeerTube channel is 'attributedTo' the user account, in the same way that Lemmy communities are 'attributedTo' the moderators. A Group belongs to at least one Person, it can't belong to itself. Another is that it allows for creators to comment on videos, and either be recognised as the 'OP', or as a fellow content creator.
In terms of rendering things like Likes and Dislikes, it has the info in the backend, so it may as well. They don't Announce votes like Lemmy does, you have to activitely fetch them, so the channel as it exists on PeerTube provides a definitive source. Likewise, there's all sorts of reasons why comments get out of sync, so the channel provides an authoritative place where you should be able to see them all.
There is a friction though. I like the idea of a place that only open to people willing to create content, and isn't interested in signups from 'lurkers', but providing a mobile app doesn't seem compatible with that.
-
That seems... like a poor choice.
We use it in our company because we don't want to upload videos only we use to Google.
-
Most established hosters would be fearful to run an instance of peertube. Costs could balloon out of nowhere and would only increase with time. There is no way donations would keep up with costs, and charging to watch or a subscription would never take off.
-
Video hosting being expensive is why it's difficult for an individual to make an account on most if any instances, which is also a problem.
There are two "that kind of behaviors" here; the button to make content searchable across peertube is off by default for some reason and some admins aren't clicking it. That could be for myriad reasons. TILvids trying to build a walled garden in an open platform is just outright wrongheadedness.
I like the idea of themed instances that revolve around certain broad topics, kind of the way television channels used to do. Some of us are old enough to remember when there was science fiction on the Sci-Fi channel, music videos on MTV, documentaries on the Discovery Channel and so on. TILvids is trying to be the Discovery channel, except anyone who signs up for cable TV primarily for the Discovery channel doesn't get to see other channels, and anyone who signed up mostly for something else doesn't get to see the Discovery channel. The owner has talked about a "hub and spoke" model they want to build with TILvids as the hub, which is an incompatible vision with the success of PeerTube as a whole.
I'll also mention that I've never seen the "upload" gauge on Peertube do anything. The idea is it works like bittorrent, those who are watching a video will seed it to others to help share the load. I've yet to see that actually happen, and I wonder if it's because no one else in the world was watching that video at that moment.
I don't know much about Loops; it may be too early to ask. I haven't really looked at it yet, in no small part because you have to sign up for it, you can't really window shop. I think Loops is going to face the same problem that Minetest (or whatever they changed its name to) does; it's a good piece of software that does the things you like, and it's not attached to the corporate fuckheads who burned your future down. Want to try it out? "Absolutely, 100% no I don't because it's not the program my friends have." The fact that the Tiktok ban in America turned out to be fake is probably what's going to fail to launch Loops.
-
The thing is, there may be content that people will find on Sepia search that you DO NOT want on your instance.
-
Seems difficult to build it as a social media if it's inherently unsocial.
-
Video hosting being expensive is why it's difficult for an individual to make an account on most if any instances, which is also a problem.
There are two "that kind of behaviors" here; the button to make content searchable across peertube is off by default for some reason and some admins aren't clicking it. That could be for myriad reasons. TILvids trying to build a walled garden in an open platform is just outright wrongheadedness.
I like the idea of themed instances that revolve around certain broad topics, kind of the way television channels used to do. Some of us are old enough to remember when there was science fiction on the Sci-Fi channel, music videos on MTV, documentaries on the Discovery Channel and so on. TILvids is trying to be the Discovery channel, except anyone who signs up for cable TV primarily for the Discovery channel doesn't get to see other channels, and anyone who signed up mostly for something else doesn't get to see the Discovery channel. The owner has talked about a "hub and spoke" model they want to build with TILvids as the hub, which is an incompatible vision with the success of PeerTube as a whole.
I'll also mention that I've never seen the "upload" gauge on Peertube do anything. The idea is it works like bittorrent, those who are watching a video will seed it to others to help share the load. I've yet to see that actually happen, and I wonder if it's because no one else in the world was watching that video at that moment.
I don't know much about Loops; it may be too early to ask. I haven't really looked at it yet, in no small part because you have to sign up for it, you can't really window shop. I think Loops is going to face the same problem that Minetest (or whatever they changed its name to) does; it's a good piece of software that does the things you like, and it's not attached to the corporate fuckheads who burned your future down. Want to try it out? "Absolutely, 100% no I don't because it's not the program my friends have." The fact that the Tiktok ban in America turned out to be fake is probably what's going to fail to launch Loops.
P2P on videos does work and if you watch out for a live stream, you’ll probably see it yourself.
Yesterday I was watching a live stream, where I had 10 peers.
-
P2P on videos does work and if you watch out for a live stream, you’ll probably see it yourself.
Yesterday I was watching a live stream, where I had 10 peers.
Again I've yet to see it happen on a normal video, which leads me to believe there's extremely little traffic.
-
Again I've yet to see it happen on a normal video, which leads me to believe there's extremely little traffic.
You can usually experience it if you watch some of newly added videos from the big channels.
-
Do we need to start over? Like fork PeerTube and fix all the "We choose to do this wrong because our parents didn't hug us as children" problems?
-
Ah cool. I never noticed that option, but that certainly improves things.
That should probably either be default or a thing asked on setup since I'd wager most people probably actually do want that.
-
Seems difficult to build it as a social media if it's inherently unsocial.
It's not unsocial. It's just not mirroring multi-gigabyte files by default. It's perfectly social if you use the website.
Everyone has to stop conflating the technology with the network. Lemmy is a website engine. PeerTube is a website engine. The ability to mirror content is not inherent to running a Lemmy- or PeerTube-based website. The network is not the primary object here.
It is a construct that arrises from content-mirroring.
Remember, federation is copying, not creating some kind of remote view. If you're federating videos, you're letting other websites consume terabytes of your storage space amd bandwidth.
-
Do we need to start over? Like fork PeerTube and fix all the "We choose to do this wrong because our parents didn't hug us as children" problems?
No, I don't think it's anywhere near that bad.
I just think that going forward, Peertube developers and instance owners should make the platform more accessible and interconnected.
It's a bigger responsibility to actually host content instead of just links to content, which I don't think most peertube instance owners can handle.
-
It's not unsocial. It's just not mirroring multi-gigabyte files by default. It's perfectly social if you use the website.
Everyone has to stop conflating the technology with the network. Lemmy is a website engine. PeerTube is a website engine. The ability to mirror content is not inherent to running a Lemmy- or PeerTube-based website. The network is not the primary object here.
It is a construct that arrises from content-mirroring.
Remember, federation is copying, not creating some kind of remote view. If you're federating videos, you're letting other websites consume terabytes of your storage space amd bandwidth.
Remember, federation is copying, not creating some kind of remote view.
Is this true? It's my understanding that, lemmy for example, has the protocol in place for servers to communicate their content with each other, but each server's content is hosted separately.
Are you saying all federated services copy each other's data instead of only linking to it?
-
The thing is, there may be content that people will find on Sepia search that you DO NOT want on your instance.
If you mean hosted on your instance, that you own, can you not delete content?
If you mean you join an instance, and it has this content on it, well then you picked the wrong instance.
