Who pays for the servers? Because if even big platforms like Signal sometimes struggle to pay the bills, in part because they spend a lot on their servers, then it’ll be dozens of times worse with video hosting
Content creators. It’s hard to host everyone’s videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.
Signal makes it’s own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP
It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted).
Do you really expect more than even 5% of all youtube channels to do it? You have high hopes.
compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers
I believe it’s done in a kinda P2P way? Didn’t really check, but wouldn’t that just not work with NAT internet connections, which many people have because that’s just more secure this way? Also, bad for privacy.
Using a TURN server would also add huge costs so it’s basically like hosting your own server
Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP
I don’t so I wouldn’t, but if I was, I would be wondering, as I always do. Anyways, I believe XMPP doesn’t store stuff and only transmits, and Matrix doesn’t store things forever (and doesn’t store videos like YT), and the main instance is funded by donations, and smaller instances are just pretty small and have media wiped when needed
it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary
That’s the POV of people in !technology@lemmy.world or selfhosted. Most people can’t be bothered with this shit and are pretty tech illiterate. Some don’t want to waste even a minute. And that’s the case of the very vast majority of people on the internet.
Who pays for the servers? Because if even big platforms like Signal sometimes struggle to pay the bills, in part because they spend a lot on their servers, then it’ll be dozens of times worse with video hosting
Content creators. It’s hard to host everyone’s videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.
Signal makes it’s own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP
Do you really expect more than even 5% of all youtube channels to do it? You have high hopes.
I believe it’s done in a kinda P2P way? Didn’t really check, but wouldn’t that just not work with NAT internet connections, which many people have because that’s just more secure this way? Also, bad for privacy.
Using a TURN server would also add huge costs so it’s basically like hosting your own server
I don’t so I wouldn’t, but if I was, I would be wondering, as I always do. Anyways, I believe XMPP doesn’t store stuff and only transmits, and Matrix doesn’t store things forever (and doesn’t store videos like YT), and the main instance is funded by donations, and smaller instances are just pretty small and have media wiped when needed
That’s the POV of people in !technology@lemmy.world or selfhosted. Most people can’t be bothered with this shit and are pretty tech illiterate. Some don’t want to waste even a minute. And that’s the case of the very vast majority of people on the internet.