Our plans for PeerTube v4
joinpeertube.org
joinpeertube.org
So I am thinking of nodes that wouldn't actually host the websites but rather only would accept bittorrent URIs and then seeding them. To make sure that the ecosystem doesn't fail.
What would the economics behind this look like? So in short what server providers provide the best deal for just bandwidth. I suppose that this mostly would require bandwidth. The second priority would be storage space of course.
So what seems to be a potential problem with peertube is that if you put up a node and then if you get popular you might run into a bandwidth cap with your VPS. The average user probably wouldn't be interested or have the know how to do this, but I believe it would suffice that if there is a certain percentage of people who have interest in keeping peertube online it might be doable.
Could be possible with torrent seedboxes ... For example, http://dash.sonicbit.net/ offers 20 GB for around USD 2 / month with HD streaming of torrent ... A couple of these can be used to create some kind of CDN.
I think that the real decentralized solutions can only happen when the cost of "I'm going to build my own with blackjack and hookers" is free or at least until the price is embedable into "usual" costs, like if your phone could become your decentralized, always-available hub
one could easily have ~10TB of storage connected to the router for about the yearly cost of the connection itself, but only a small minority does.
It's why FOSS can't make serious inroads in a lot of domains. Like 20 years ago I was convinced we'd all never be paying for Word, but here we are, 20 years later, still buying Word.
Inertia has long lasting effects.
It's about a libre alternative.
Does the apple challenge the orange? They are both fruits!
How is it different from lots of independent sites, with RSS feeds for each channel?
And doesn't that make it an N^2 problem? Does every instance have to follow every other instance to make this work?
This is like you want to follow some channel from tilvids.com but dont want to follow the entire instance.
The biggest problem to solve is diacoverability, a thin shell is not enough if you want to solve the general problem
I do believe I tried to sign up for LBRY but I don't know if it really took up.
Might it be that LBRY simply doesn't scale or that there is some network effect that causes it not to work unless there are some specific conditions.
I made a search for "music" in sepiasearch.org, assuming this should be broad enough to get something interesting. The top result has 9 views. I can filter by "popular".
Look, I understand that Youtube's recommendation algorithm is problematic, but I need a way to find relevant content. "Sort by views" should at least be an option.
It almost makes me want to build a crawler and search engine for these.
I realize getting kids' content is going to take effort that requires funding somehow, but why aren't there good technical discussions posted on PeerTube? It seems like a great place for controversial opinions about tech, even if that isn't banned on YouTube.
Also try PBS Kids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_Kids
https://www.youtube.com/c/PBSKIDS/playlists
You could use youtube-dl to curate content:
French open seems strong, especially for video.
https://github.com/BasixKOR/awesome-activitypub#services
edit: a comment about PeerTube itself, be sure to check out probably its most interesting installation (TILvids), by which interesting means you'll be watching a lot of their content for the edutainment:
One of the fundamental goals of free software is to enable its use by all people, even and especially people you do not like. That's not a problem for PeerTube to solve, it is a problem for society at large to address within itself.
To frame this another way: think of the criminal organizations which spin up a web server somewhere and install Apache on it to host their illicit content and advertise their services. Is Apache somehow to blame? No, of course not, the criminals are. The same logic applies here; PeerTube, as a sharing platform, is technically able to share any data, including hate speech and other objectionable content. As an unbiased tool, that's a feature not a bug.
(PS. I'm genuinely asking, I would appreciate an honest reply)
"PeerTube is not a platform, it is a software."
The few times I've visited any of the 'chans however, it's been quite different - but curiously I don't see the same people making these complaints mentioning them.
In contrast, https://joinpeertube.org/ recommends videos on front page, and you can find offensive (to some) videos in 2 clicks.
On the other hand, if PeerTube is used to host a lot of pro-facist video content made by racists that could be a problem for PeerTube. It's an existential threat to the technology. If governments and ISPs see it as predominantly used for that then they'll ban it. If more legitimate users see it being used for that then they'll stop peering video content and it'll become much less useful. PeerTube will live or die by the network effect it needs to be effective. Guarding against the "wrong" users, or at least marketing it so that more of the "right" users join, is essential. Nothing about that is a judgement on the content or the users; it's the simple reality of developing technology in a society full of different opinions.
Regardless, I get what you mean.
He means that the same criticisms of white supremacists using a platform could be leveled at the protocol of email.
I do agree with Twitter, AWS, deplatforming who they want: why would you purposefully allow a bad actor (or misguided people) to use your technology/weapons? If they're not sophisticated enough or want to piggyback on the technology of people who don't believe you should be allowed to freely incite violence, then those bad actors will learn a lesson - as they seemed to - and then they will have to rally and align with those who do fully support a lack of moderation, etc. There are other problems like a lack of data and network portability laws, and PeerTube to some degree is a bridge for that, but the laws still need to be in place as a canary - if they ever happen to get removed.
The broader issue is societal - and that our institutions have been weakened by a number of factors including regulatory capture by industrial complexes, tied with the duopoly - leading to policy that kills off and suffocates the majority of people instead of supporting them to be able to thrive. Racism, as an example, could be argued as a multi-generational health whereby narratives, role modelling, overlaid onto circumstances of excess suffering, excess stress, that prime the racism to continue to perpetuate. It's also a sign of a lack of deep, genuine community and interconnectedness; we have politicians and the mainstream media and the vast majority, if not all, global brands constantly trying to manipulate us - and the whole ad industry enabling little "mom and pop shops" from being able to join in on the manipulate to sell things to consumers, buying attention for little to no effort - undeserved, unearned attention.
It's possible that if Trump hadn't been deplatformed then he could have further incited violence, more easily, and quickly enough; Parler and other forums did at least temporarily organize at least the most avid. It's possible too - though based on the Capitol incursion security forces weren't prepared and/or lacking integrity - that security forces would have been prepared to counter whatever portion of disenfranchised (and misguided) Trump supporters would be ready to escalate further violence. But the important part to all of it is that it was a wakeup call - that Trump got voted in because who slid by the control mechanisms and corridors the duopoly had managed to evolve and strengthen over the last X decades - that there are 80+ million people who aren't happy and are prone to lies, propaganda coming from and being reenforced by these various complexes.
In short conclusion, Andrew Yang's core policies seem like the new foundation necessary to counter the majority, if not all, of the problems that lead to this current state of America; Presidential candidate, now running for Mayor of NYC.
This takes back control to creators in such a way that essentially only domain registrars will be able to dictate what content may stay alive on the internet. (And naturally that each to their own get to federate to their own liking) At the moment domain registrars have been staying on what is IMO the correct stance of content allowance, requiring more or less police warrants to take down content. In fact I'm hopeful enough for this project that I've considered spending some time to get stuck in the development enough that I could even contribute pull requests or helpful issues to the tracker.
I would like to see a world instead where all channels on Youtube were their own "Peertubes" instead. Youtube/Google have really let consumers and creators down as it is right now, which in a way is natural, since they only really have allegiance to their sponsors and advertisers.
It just surprised me how effective this method of censorship was and I wonder how often it happens with more important topics.
Context: https://twitter.com/BS__Exposed/status/1321535914036748288?s... https://twitter.com/icapulet/status/1375232839415906304?s=20 https://twitter.com/FinanceLancelot/status/13752898727562731...
https://videos.martinezperspective.org/videos/trending?a-sta...
You don't need to browse all the instances, you can stick to ones recommended by curators you trust.
Joinpeertube should do better about how it promotes instances for newbies.
As for YouTube, similar example - There's a current trending HN thread on:
> YouTube suspends account for linking to a PhD research on WPA2 vulnerability
Can't/doesn't PeerTube work with IP-addresses directly?
There's only one kind considered too controversial for mainstream.
*Added context since parent was flagged
I'm guessing...videos leaked from inside factory farms.
> 1) Non-white non-males are given less ability to grow in the "STEM/Entrepreneurship" fields as students and/or children by society.
> 2) White men are able to outperform those other groups by some inherent quality.
> Nevertheless, 1) seems to be partially disproved
Unless I misread, the claim that is being made here is "white males are inherently superior"
I think stirfish was being sarcastic about factory farms and probably reached the same (scary) conclusion.
Blending of conflicting ideologies implies compromise or trade-off, which would be a popular front.
In a united front, the groups do not merge or compromise. Ideologies and ultimate intentions remain pure, and the groups only collaborate in the name of overlapping interests.
Edit: replaced "Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced" by "People should be held accountable by lies and defamation they eventually spread"
Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.
If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. - why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability to regulate this portion of speech too?
This is more of a devil's advocate argument than anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
Smh
And this is by design.
No, in America this is false. A true threat must be a credible, present danger to its target. Saying "all people of race X should be killed" is nothing like that.
same goes for libel and threats to individuals.
No. Libel is not illegal, and is still protected against prior restraint. It's only addressable through civil liability suits.
And this is by design.
People like to talk about "defamation", but in America the bar is so high that it's only rarely applicable.
> "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled
This threw an exception, because "hate speech" is an arbitrary type. It has no objective definition. It is defined by whoever happens to be defining it.
Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation.
If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay!
I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.
We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat. English is not that simple.
So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent is already set for humans to moderate human english. It is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.