Well that’s not fair. The vote should at least be weighted proportionally to the number of people the company employs.
Rakn
joined 2 years ago
Nah. Why should I be against it? That’s a rather weird stance. I don’t really tend do deal in auch absolutes. But seeing that it’s a technical problem for you I don’t think there is merit in talking further about it. I don’t see it that way. Technology is just an enabler. It doesn’t much matter in these things.
What I meant by that is that I doubt that you can make your club so resilient. We are talking about a lot of social dynamics here. This isn’t a technical problem in any way. And the past has shown that network effects are a real thing. So inevitably if you give someone with a thousand times the resources and likely than the rest of the community the opportunity they will take it. It will become known as the main instance and everyone will join there. Smaller instances will become more irrelevant as they are already and at some point bow to what the largest instance dictates.
Take Lemmy for example. You can already see some of that happening with instances like beehaw. Do what they say or you get defederated. Naturally smaller instances will fall in line. What do you imagine happens if an instance joins that is as thousand times the size of the current entire network?
At some point it will be „do as we say or loose all your content“. Which will then lead to users switching instances where they have the access they want.
This is not a technical problem. The protocols can be nice and open. But that doesn’t help you if the network itself is fragile due to human nature.
What I meant is: It sounds nice in theory that you can build a social network in a federated way that is resilient to our social nature. I just have my concerns and going to watch with interest how it unfolds. It will likely take some years. But we‘ll see.
Woher kommt das Gefühl, auf Twitch und YouTube wären mehr deutsche unterwegs. Liegt das vielleicht eher daran was die Plattformen dir an Inhalten anzeigen. Ich würde das sehr sehr stark bezweifeln.
Das „nerdige“ an Reddit/Lemmy ist tatsächlich denke ich, wie andere schon erwähnt haben, dass es weniger Mainstream ist. Ich erinnere mich an einen Post in r/de eines Lehrers der feststellen musste, dass die Kids aus seiner Klasse Reddit für eine Pornoseite gehalten haben. Man bekommt halt das angezeigt wonach man sucht ;-)
That sounds nice in theory. Going to be very interesting how it holds up in practice.
Yeah but these examples are all bigger than Google. The fediverse irrelevant in comparison. Additionally at least Linux doesn’t have such a strong network effect, since it’s not a social network. I mean I’m going to let myself be surprised. But I kinda doubt that anything good will come from it.
The Meta business side isn’t nice folks that try to do good in general.
Comparing a web forum to a medium article with people commenting under it. It looks like that person has little grasps on why Reddit or the likes are being used.
No one is using comments on sites like Medium to discuss anything. The comments there are always low quality from people that have no clue. You find that on Reddit as well. But the threading and voting systems kind of accounts for that.
These aggregators are a site to discuss what’s written on medium. They aren’t a replacement and vice versa.
Weird person that came to this conclusion. Imagine stop using forums. What would be lost. One person writing a medium article couldn’t replace that wealth of information.
I think comparing it with E-Mail is a bit naive. It a different history. Accepting Meta basically means making it the main instance of the fediverse. The main content and users will be over there. There will be policies what is allowed and not allowed on the main instance and who can federate with it. With new additions of features and policies the federation of will slowly become meaningless. In the end it will be a similar situation like with Reddit. Where Meta is Reddit in this scenario and the other instances are the third party clients. Yes they will still be able to communicate with each other. But in the grand scheme of things the rest of the network will be irrelevant.
There already is a tendency to flock to the largest instances. Meta can provide a larger instance than all current instances combined and will have better UX.
This is a social / business problem. Not a technical one about open protocols. Meta has shown in the past that they might have good developers and open source a ton of stuff. But their business side of things is borderline evil.
That sounds like a very naive view on part of that developer. He probably never heard of Microsoft’s „Embrace, extend, and extinguish“ approach. This is going to be similar with Facebook. They have a lot more resources than all current instances combined and can provide a much better user experience. They are going to be the main instance on the federated network slowly starting to extend it and support features others lack. Making it a unique selling point until it’s too late.
And that’s not even looking at the moral/ethical standpoint of getting involved with Meta.
My assumption was based on the idea to have a proper YouTube replacement. Not some run down video storage for a hand full of large content creators that can afford it.
- The scalability you buy via P2P also means an increased storage. So if you want to offer a similar platform that is used in a similar way then you probably would need a multiple of the current storage capacity that YouTube offers. Likely close to an exabyte of storage (assuming that YouTube has just about 300 petabytes. Which likely is a lower number by now.)
- Especially for the amount of users consuming the content you would need a good distribution factor. Popular content would need to be distribution over thousands of pees for it to kinda work out. So a lot of people could share the necessary video data, making the storage a problem.
- Big servers in a datacenter will always be more efficient because they are designed to be compared to consumer hardware. It's like replacing a central power plant with a small power plant per home. It won't deliver the same efficiency and is a waste of resources. Ecologically speaking.
creators already store their content locally
A lot of creators delete at least the raw footage because they don't have enough space and it would be too expensive. One creator hosting their own content wouldn't even begin to scale in such a scenario. They would need powerful hardware and serious network connectivity. Something the large creators probably could afford, but most couldn't.
peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.
Especially old tech is less efficient than current generations.
How would such a system be more efficient? That is very counter intuitive. In addition the question would be who pays for PeerTube. Because unlike Mastodon or Lemmy and the likes, storing large amounts of video files is actually damn expensive.
Weird concept. But I’d give it a try.