Ask Slashdot: Will P2P Video Sites Someday Replace YouTube? 68
dryriver writes: BitChute is a video-hosting website like YouTube, except that it states its mission as being "anti-censorship" and is Peer-To-Peer, WebTorrent based. "It is based on the peer-to-peer WebTorrent system, a JavaScript torrenting program that can run in a web browser," according to Wikipedia. "Users who watch a video also seed it. BitChute does not rely on advertising, and users can send payments to video creators directly. In November 2018 BitChute was banned from PayPal." So it seems that you don't need huge datacenters to build something like YouTube -- Bitchute effectively relies on its users to act as a distributed P2P datacenter. Is this the future of internet video? Will more and more people flock to P2P video-hosting sites as/when more mainstream services like YouTube fall prey to various forms of censorship?
Video Gnutella? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Does this have an equal to YouTube's copyright system? If not, here come the rip-offs of the mainstreams. At that point, it becomes Video Napster...
Re:Video Gnutella? (Score:4, Informative)
There was something like that based on Bittorrent a while back. It did have a bit of a spam problem but it wasn't too bad because Bittorrent relies on websites for the links and the good ones are curated a little.
The main problem was that it just wasn't as easy to use as YouTube so didn't catch on.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
More likely it'll be "angry young white man shouting about how much he detests women and brown people"-tube. The 8ch or voat to Youtube's reddit, if you will. That's who turns up when you light the "uncensored free speech" beacon these days. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know there's other ways to end a sentence, don't you!
Uh, what? (Score:2)
So which? Do they host videos, or do they simply connect peer-to-peer?
Re: (Score:2)
P2P was always a bad idea.. it's trying to be untraceable like the audio apps of the modem days, isn't this why YouTube works and everything else failed?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And more important, how will video makers monetize their "work"?
After all, when you hear about "YouTube censorship", what you're mostly hearing is, "YouTube won't give me money for my video any more! Wah!" Actual YouTube videos being censored is pretty rare.
Will each individual video maker have to sell their own advertising time to sponsors? Judging from your average "YouTube star" that has been "censored" by not getting free money any
Re: (Score:2)
There's been some takedowns of some political-talkers recently, and I hear some lotteries have to pay to keep their old drawing videos up.
There's plenty of copyright enforcement now... so what lets this system become better than YouTube?
Re:Uh, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Judging from your average "YouTube star" that has been "censored" by not getting free money any more
It's "free money" just as payments for your work are "free money".
Most video streamers and bloggers are tight-lipped about this, but it's a very taxing job.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not just about demonetisation -- which by the way is a very serious deal, as they're taking away someone's livelihood for vague and nebulous reasons. It's not just about Youtube not sending notifications for channels they don't like. It's not just about abrupt and permanent takedowns of channels with zero strikes, either, i.e. Youtube not following their own rules.
Lately there's also been incredibly explicit censorship in search results. Wherein searching directly for popular videos and channels with m
Re: (Score:1)
mostly hearing is, "YouTube won't give me money for my video any more!
Your calling it "free money" gives away your bias here, but what you are claiming is not true. In many cases where YouTube demonetizes a video they also remove it from all promotion and search results. This essentially limits the ability to find it to either finding it on the creator's video list or having someone send a direct link.
Re: (Score:1)
you're* calling it free money
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
"Calling it free money" is effectively the noun in the first sentence. As in, "your act of calling it free money." Try replacing it with another noun, such as "face," and suddenly your correction looks quite wrong:
"You're face gives away your bias here."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to use a p2p when they have a data cap? Watch and seed a few popular cat videos that go viral and the next thing you know you owe a $10k in overage fees.
(more than half US services have data caps though many offer unlimited plans for an extra premium)
Re: (Score:2)
My videos have been censored and I don't use ads at all - I don't make any money *or desire to make any money* with youtube, but nevertheless a good couple of my videos have been removed. Censorship on youtube is *rampant*.
Re: (Score:2)
True. For those who are only interested in mainstream establishment-approved content there won't be much censorship to notice. For anyone who seeks out alternative content or politically incorrect information the censorship is obvious. Life is good for the conformists on Youtube, not so much for real truth seekers...
Re: (Score:1)
The site looks like a video-sharing website to the user.
No. Because money is a thing. (Score:2)
*NEWSFLASH*
This just in: Money is a thing.
People all over the globe are reporting that they expect money for work. It seems there is a wide spread belief growing that when people aren't given money for work the quality of that work significantly decreases or ceases entirely. For more on this, we turn to...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> or (if you're a moron) cable TV.
How do I watch the local sports games on streaming?
How do I watch the current season of sports (F1, MotoGP, etc.) on streaming without a VPN?
Streaming is great if:
a) ALL your content is available on it but, sadly, not all content is available via streaming services. It's getting better but the harsh reality is that it's still not possible and too complicated at times.
b) you have a good, fast, stable, internet connection. Broadband quality can and does vary by location.
D
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix, yes. But I consume WAY WAY more content than I pay for directly in a Netflix style business model. In fact, the number of websites I pay directly for content is very few. I do donate to a few Patreon content makers, but few of them make enough to live on (none that I support), you would have better luck just paying the lottery than trying to make a living on YouTube and Patreon.
In the end, I consume content BECAUSE ads pay for them.
Oh, no, not again! (Score:2)
Remember the original design of the SlingBox? It connected to your home TV box, and then moved it over your home connection. Wait a second, it's easier to get you a feed from TV Everywhere now, with the only thing missing are your local access channels that really shouldn't be leaving your hometown.
Basicly, the way this is designed is bad for your home peeps and your neighborhood. It's the reason why YouTube has to pay its bandwidth bill, it's throwing a lot more out that is coming in. Right now, @Home conn
Re:Oh, no, not again! (Score:4, Interesting)
Good points about residential networking not built to handle this. But
This invites shows like The Broken which is career-ending for those involved because there was no censor stopping them... let's not do this again.
'Those involved' seem to be doing reasonably well. I guess most of the world really doesn't get their panties in a bunch over what everyone else is watching. That said, if P2P turns out to be the way to go, then broadband providers will have to modify their business models (and systems) to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm... where's Dan and Kevin from that show? They went missing from media.
Re: (Score:2)
The Broken was released in 2008 and Lena Headey's career seems to have done just fine since then.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, there's already planned this-empire-only solutions from Disney/ESPN and NBC.
Xfinity sometimes brags that their cloud DVR is able to capture every channel on the system going backwards for a few weeks.. shows time out by copyright/DRM, not Xfinity running out of space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm still hoping that Jordan Peterson gets out of rehab and launches his service.
pied piper (Score:1)
Exist? Maybe. Replace? No. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
On LBRY for instance you download videos from others when you want to watch them, and then if you like the video enough you can continue serving it and keeping it alive. Spam doesn't gain as much traction as legitimate videos because nobody wants to host viagra ads or whatever.
Man, the people on Slashdot today really have no idea what they're talking about, they're stuck in the 90's
Re: (Score:2)
nobody wants to host viagra ads or whatever.
I would if I got paid.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would it be slower? A video file is a video file of a set file size.
The user has their own ISP bandwidth.
With the plus side of not having to wonder about censorship.
Re:Exist? Maybe. Replace? No. (Score:4)
Will more and more people flock to P2P...? (Score:1)
Let's hope so. We can do the same for search engines [yacy.net] too.
Ultimately your ISP will do deep packet inspection, but this is a start in defeating censorship permanently. Soon we will make the internet P2P, untethered to a service provider.
Re: (Score:2)
Soon we will make the internet P2P, untethered to a service provider.
You want to bounce a signal off your neighbor's Wifi out to the Internet? We're always going to need the ISPs.
So.... (Score:2)
The short answer? (Score:2)
No.
The long answer? (Score:2)
Fuck no.
Replace? No, Not Likely. (Score:1)
First, live streams are a thing on YouTube, twitch.tv, etc., and that you won't be doing over P2P.
Second, a lot of content creators are doing this for a living and like to get paid so they can keep a roof over their heads and be able to take their kids to a doctor when needed. You'd need to establish mechanisms for advertising, revenue allocation and payouts, which is a whole infrastructure largely incompatible with the anti-censorship-I-want-everything-for-free types that use P2P.
Re:Replace? No, Not Likely. (Score:5, Informative)
On YouTube today there are tons of channels that have been 100% demonized yet still manage to turn a profit and make videos full time as a career because THEIR AUDIENCE GIVES THEM MONEY.
Why is it so hard for you boomer fucks to understand that just like you give cable companies or Netflix money you can give YouTube creators money?
Re: (Score:2)
Live-streaming over peer-to-peer exists. It is called P2PTV [wikipedia.org] and it works, and in modern browsers.
It does use different algorithms from peer-to-peer sharing of video files, and playing them back as they arrive.
A decade ago, I worked with algorithms for streaming video files similar to Bittorrent video, and we did so commercially with a million users.
You are right that server infrastructure is needed even for P2P, which someone has to pay for. The problem is not just about monetary distribution, but the P2P
WebM (Score:2)
If there is anything that have any potential at all to threat youtube it is the webm technology itself, the capability of playing well compressed videos by simply hosting a file.
There are many, many ways to host those, some with cloud solutions, some with P2P, classic servers.., but it's just a file now, not some sort of bizarre stream protocol that requires a shoddy proprietary video plugin.
It even made places such as the imageboards places where you can actually host small videos.
It will never work (Score:3)
The very fact that its "anti-censorship" and therefore presumably doesn't have filters (either for copyright or for things like child porn or extremist content or other banned/restricted/bad content) means it will be heavily targeted by both governments (who will want to stop it because of whatever "bad" content might be there such as ISIS beheading videos or mass shooting videos) and media companies (who will want to stop it because of all the dodgy "video-camera-pointed-at-the-cinema-screen" copies of the latest Hollywood blockbusters).
Re: (Score:2)
The responsibility to be your own filtering agent is the price of a free speech society. For those who only want to be spoon-fed establishment approved pablum, Youtube & MSM is there for you...
P2P isn't the answer, but I know what is (Score:2)
The problems with virtually all of the YouTube alternatives on offer so far are that they still have a single-point of failure and/or they offer no effective way to monetize content.
P2P and BitChute may distribute the hosting but how do you *effectively* monetize content via these systems?
Other options also provide distributed hosting but generally have a single access-point which provides the indexing and can thus be crippled, censored or whatever (having stuff online serves no purpose if it can't be very
Post the link (Score:2)
I'm working on a paper and video to describe how it works...
You should post the BitChute link to the video when it's ready.
Seriously? (Score:2)
I called 1999 and asked if it would take its technology back, but it said no.
Censored content has never been so dull (Score:2)
Call me old, but conspiricy content was way more fun before the white supremacists were booted from the mainstream platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Thst's what happens when the "censored" network censors lightly and in a way that any decent person who could get along with Western liberalism would agree with (copyright madness aside).
LBRY as an alternative (Score:1, Informative)
Ah... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
two things (Score:1)
content (Score:2)
Platform doesn't matter, content does. I just checked out this site and found not a single video I'm even remotely interested in on quite a bit of scrolling down the main page.
The content creators and their channels are on youtube. You need to give them incentives to add you and post on your site as well (you won't get them to post on your side instead, additionally is the best you can hope for at least until you're as big as youtube).
If you can't get that done, nothing else matters. It'll be another niche
Youtube censorship (Score:2)
If Youtube insists on censoring the speech of users like me we have no choice but to seek alternatives. My YT account was suspended for merely posting links to qmap.pub in a live chat. The MSM/Big Tech control of information for the public is very real and very evil.
Viva la revolucion! (Score:2)
Peertube (Score:2)
It's based on ActivityPub. You can have your own node with your own rules, limits, ... and join other instances.
Will it replace Youtube someday? Probably not but you will have the control over YOUR videos.
What makes this different? (Score:2)
This seems a lot like peertube [joinpeertube.org] but proprietary.
No thanks.