/tech/ - Technology

It's nice but how much does it cost to serve videos to let's say 10000 concurrent users? Won't this just fall over if people actually use it at any scale?

>>31645
Idk, maybe instances could set size limits or compress it a lot. It'll be neat to see it get to the point of such a stress test.

>>31645
Yeah, that's the thing, video hosting will always be expensive, I doubt even YouTube is all that profitable ultimately.

Why would anyone make this? The TikTok format cancer needs to DIE, federation won't make it any better.

>>31657
Could be a way to get people off of it, since you'd be going from an algorithm designed to make you addicted to the format devoid of said algorithm, able to decide for yourself if it's mid or worth keeping up for what artistic avenues looping audio-video media and vertical video have to offer.

>>31653
Right, a youtube killer would either need to be heavily subsidized itself or transfer much of the bandwidth cost onto the users, like peertube does with its torrenting scheme.

>>31665
One method I saw I think could be expanded on is how Iriam does Vtubers: send the rig to the user, then only send audio and mocap data to then be rendered client-side, rather than sending a video feed of the result.
Imagine setting this up with html slideshows or something so you could livestream a presentation.

>>31645
what if videos are ephemeral, and also hosting uses some p2p to alleviate costs, if you wish to keep an archive, you keep an archive yourself, only the latest videos are hosted on the p2p network, this way the trendiest videos are the less costly to host

>>31667
I mean, compared to an html and an audio track a guy talking over a slideshow is wasteful, but among video types it compresses extremely well and you could host it on something like vimeo without problems or even your own site. Client-side rendering only seems realistic in the vtuber case, where you have reusable, high-definition textures, or full-blown machinima if that wasn't dead.

This seems to be built on Pixelfed (which was more of an Instagram style federated platform) so its good that its open source and federated. It seems to be making progress for interoperability at least according to that blog, such as the way it structures a video-centric platform in a way that will work with non-video centric alternatives (ie microblogging and photo-style tech like Mastodon or Pixelfed). Now the big thing they need to do if they want some actual fucking progress is to
>Not allow overzealous moderation by instance owners; leave it up to individual users.
One of the biggest problems I've had with the 'fediverse' is that it becomes a fractious culture war battleground with nodes/servers run by the most obnoxious people who you can imagine, perpetually offended. This means that, for most 'less technical' users - anyone who isn't running their own entire server that is - their ability to communicate with others comes down to what their admin deems worthy of federating with. If I am on Instance A, and you are on Instance B, yet instance A's admin decided that B is full of degenerates or nazis or fascists or communists or pedos or whatever they find problematic, I can't talk to you. This was always one of the weaknesses of not the fediverse itself but the individual projects within. THe "maximum" amount of defederation should be "nothing from your server is showed on my server's public/universe etc..feeds" which would still leave individual users the chance to make their own choices about what to do, where they want to go, and who they wish to connect with. Loops coding this in from the start would be a help, especially considering that it appears their "instance inbox" thing suggests that all the federated messages go through one server side pipe as it were which is more of a hole for both security and overzealous moderation.

>>31665
PeerTube is the best alternative so far and handles this situation by far. It allows both instances to do some degree of the heavy lifting, but if users are watching the same thing there's p2p webtorrent. As it grows the costs go down both with users and servers - its the only way to really handle something like this…along with usage of better codecs for bandwidth.

>>31669

That would lead to the worst sort of clickbait behavior in order to keep the "latest" and "popular" stuff hosted elsewhere, so I don't think that's a great idea. Less popular but no less viable content would evaporate if it was not clickbait and anyone who didn't manage to archive it would be fucked. Now, this would lead to massive amounts of scraping and bandwidth used by bots who were archiving everything for fear that nothing would be there tomorrow and of course those who could afford to run/host that stuff would have a huge presence compared to those that couldn't., Not a great way to go I don't think - we already have enough clickbait algorithmic shit even with a megacorp footing the bill for near universal hosting.

>Instead of being trapped in walled gardens, your content, your followers, and your identity can move freely across the open web.
I've always felt TikTok is bad for this reason
>>31657
>format cancer
"Zionists need to buy TikTok for peoples own good, we need harm reduction anti-fascism" - cancerous socialists

To the people suggesting offloading video hosting to peers, this is mobile-centric short-form content. I'm guessing you understand neither the technology you're talking about nor how people use Tiktok.