[fabricexpert]

I've been doing lots of research on video games and some other niche areas, it's staggering how much information is on YouTube and only on YouTube. There are millions of hours of super high quality user-generated content locked up in videos that can't be (or aren't) indexed properly, all of which are effectively owned and maintained by Google.

The number of alternatives to youtube is approximately zero. No one wants to upload to a new platform because it's a lot of work and you don't get paid for it (once you hit a certain number of YT views you start getting paid and there's real incentive there, you can potentially get relatively wealthy from it).

Perhaps peertube will be the solution, but I suspect we need something groundbreaking to conquer the monopoly here.

[nyxtom]

Censorship seems to be the main driving force behind users looking at other platforms at the moment. That being said, unfortunately, without the ad model, there's minimal incentives for users to fully migrate to other platforms like Patreon (for instance). If any new platform that wants to come online and compete, it will have to integrate the ad-model to provide any kind of real incentives for the users.

[toomuchtodo]

Patreon should become a supporter of PeerTube development when Youtube axes Patreon platform use entirely.

[erva]

YT now has channel "memberships" built in that mimic Patreon. Since it is integrated into YT you get a streamlined perks platform along with a special icon noting you are a "member" of the channel when commenting.

[livestyle]

Patreon is part of the SV mafia.. They're just as bad w/ arbitrary censorship.

Bitcoin is a better use case for PeerTube imo.

[thecatspaw]

why/how would youtube axe Patreon platform use?

[toomuchtodo]

Using Youtube for Patreon videos, generating costs for YT that don't have a revenue/monetization component.

https://www.polygon.com/2017/9/28/16380186/youtube-patreon-d...

https://mashable.com/2017/09/28/youtube-outside-links-partne...

[cheez]

Patreon is also censoring.

[CobrastanJorji]

It's a good point. I'm very interested in plans to allow recouping of network costs. I'm happy to store my videos on my home desktop or in the cloud somewhere; that's inexpensive. But if a million people want to download my videos in 4K someday? I can't afford to pay for that. Those downloaders might be willing to pay a few pennies each, though. An advertising network seems like the obvious but wrong solution. I wonder if there could be some standardized way of generifying payment for videos, so that users could plug in any combination of ad viewing, direct payments, or whatever as desired, so that the ecosystem around getting money out of viewers could develop independently from the ecosystem for providing content.

[veridies]

I think that you’re fundamentally describing BitTorrent, which allows very wide distribution of large files with very low bandwidth costs. If one’s only goal is hosting videos with minimal bandwidth usage, BitTorrent (and maybe a scheme to prioritize uploading to peers that upload more themselves) works perfectly, and there exist browser plugins to enable in-browser torrent streaming. The problem, of course, is that there’s no way to monetize that, but honestly the vast majority of YouTubers don’t make any money anyway.

[austinheap]

That's kinda the whole point of PeerTube: the people watching your video also become peers in the WebTorrent swarm so no one party ends up eating 100% of the bandwidth cost. To use your example: if "if a million people want to download my videos in 4K" then you will have a LOT of peers in that swarm. The more peers in a swarm the less likely _any_ PeerTube instance will have to serve _any_ video content at all.

TLDR; popular videos are the most likely to have little-to-no bandwidth cost for the content creator/instance admins.

[stev0lution]

Ever heard about Brave or BAT? https://github.com/brave