The pressures that make youtube act the way it does aren't going to be significantly different for another provider.
How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos.
No, that self-hosting option doesn't replace Youtube. A lot of techies seem to have a blind spot as to the real value Youtube provides to content creators and video uploaders: $0 hosting costs for unlimited audience.
No self-hosted tech stack or home-based network appliance to stream videos can offer that same financial deal.
Techies seem to only see the technical stack and the protocol to host a video. The intimate knowledge computers is actually misdirecting you away from the real strengths of Youtube. Instead, look at Youtube the same way a non-techie content creator would. My previous comments trying to explain this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18488484
However people making money on youtube are a significant minority. Most uses are not that use.
So in terms of non-commercial sharing - I already pay for my internet connection and fibre 'upload' speeds ( from home-out ) are very under-utilized.
Also usage isn't metered - the limit is maxbandwidth X time.
So the only risk here is being too popular - which is frankly unlikely!
If you wanted to scale - p2p is an option - the issues around illegal content etc - that can be fixed if you have identity and permissions built in - the people who share are identifiable and you only choose to peer people/content you approve.
Imagine it being like a retweet - with just the same legal consequences, but with just the same potential to reach millions - but without a single company in control...
> How do we get there? Assuming users still don't want to pay for cat videos.
Peer-to-peer torrent-like distribution. Of course, then you'll have the problem where the system will be full of pirated content, illegal content, etc, and you'll get to enjoy attention from police and regulators.
Of course, it doesn't have an ad or patronage model built in.