this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
224 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43984 readers
738 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with video content (even short videos) is, that it generates an absurd amount of traffic and needs lots and lots of local data storage. This is also why there are so few PeerTube instances.
PeerTube would be a way to publish your short clips, too. Not as specialized as TikTok, but still ...
Yeah the data is an issue for sure. I wonder if torrents of some kind would help making it more doable, where viewers (on computers, not phones) build up a cache from which they also seed. Like Spotify did when they started out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeroNet
Something similar to this might help disburse the load required for peertube. What sites you read you host in return, very much like with bit torrent with a presentation layer tacked on top.
I think you are looking for something like ipfs.
I think the cache would also have to partially be on phones. If users are to 'pay' for using the network by caching/redistributing part of it, since most people access the web from phones
Yeah viewing devices would all have to share hosting duties. Iโm sure it could work, and popular/viral videos would serve well as the demand would be spread across the most devices as well.
There would still have to be dedicated seed servers for long tail content though I imagine.
Also tiktok really only makes sense with a big algorithm knowing what users want to see. Even if you were to follow many people, with the average video being only about 30 seconds long you won't have much content to enjoy. The whole short form video thing is kinda built on knowing what your user likes and doesn't. I don't know how you could design such a platform without some privacy concerns.
Yes, yes you could.
Companies like Google have successfully brainwashed us into believing that algorithms like this can only work on their server farms. The only reason those werver farms are necessary is becauwe they're processing data for millions of people.
We forget that in each of our hands we hold a device that is 5,000 x more powerful than a 1985 CRAY-2, at the time the world's fastest supercomputer. And let's not forget our home desktops and laptops, which are several times more powerful that that.
We each have devices with persistent internet connections that could be at work scanning, categorizing, and filtering personalized content for each of us, without giving any privacy away. It's only because we've been conditioned to be dependent on having our data centrally processed that we believe that's the only way.
Note, it is more efficient to process content centrally, where the data is stored. However, generalized categorization and content tagging with robust metadata and standardized APIs would address the efficiency. Given companies are unlikely to do this and scupper their own surveillance revenue, the next best thing is local, privacy-respecting, smart content filtering assistants.
Are you Richard from Silicon Valley TV show? :)
Those sound like good ideas in theory, but your phone's battery would last about 2 hours if you did this.
The heavy lifting, like tagging the content of millions of videos probably needs to be done somewhere other than the end-user's mobile device. Some sorting and filtering of text-based metadata on the user's device to pick what videos to see next is viable though.
True, although it would probably not be so bad for the textual content. CPU load for indexing would be relatively low, and the average phone is dumping tons of data over the network to Google, Apple, and whomever else for these same end-result "benefits" already.
But, regardless, ideally, -ou don't do it on your phone. You pay $10/m for a VPS that does it, and delivers it to your phone via push notification + fetch -- same way it's done now, but without the middle man.
It's not a solution available to the average Joanne, although it'd be easy enough to achieve. The problem is that there's no incentive for anyone to make these appliances: most people don't understand what they're sacrificing, or don't care. And while it's a relatively small amount of work, it's a large effort for a few OSS devs to take on, and it'd require at least some support infrastructure, apps, and so on to be truly turn-key for The Public. And so, instead, we have TikTok.
I'm fine with requiring users to tag their own content if they want it to be discoverable. Like if you want to tell people "hey I'm talking about pixel art over here!" just add #pixelArt to your thing.
If you don't want to shout it loud for all to hear that's fine too. Not everything needs to be indexed, cached, and highly available to all who might potentially, possibly want to see it.
Algorithm doesn't have to be a secret engagement sauce. It can just be based on an editable list of the user's preferred tags and keywords with associated weights.
No need to get more complicated than that because you're not trying to juice their "engagement" since their are no ads to show them.
Although I'm not even sure if infinite shorts make sense without a company pulling the strings for their own motive. But maybe it's just not my thing
There are hosting providers that offer unmetered bandwidth.
Sure, setup complexity is higher, but it is definitely doable.
I have thought about such a project as I also have access to relatively inexpensive 20gbps fiber, but lack the funding currently to do it.
Maybe one dayโฆ
Same with Instagram. I'm a performer and rely on it for outreach and promotion but absolutely HATE the platform to no end. And this is a common sentiment among all performers. It is a garbage platform that comforts Nazis and pedophiles but bans the hashtag #horror and puts your account in jail for using it.
Unfortunately, PixelFed has almost no one on it and reaching a local audience is impossible, so there's no point in switching. We have to go where the people are :(
This is why I expect the video side of things to be more on the level of stream channels that self-host content with subscriptions for access to VoDs, rather than singular big platforms. Streaming in of itself is a lot of traffic too, but you have much bigger RoI per bandwidth spent with live viewers, and you cut down the storage requirements with limited VoD access too.
The only problem then becomes discovering these channels from the rest of the federated space, but honestly, either that will be a problem that will be solved by the space in a more general manner (oooh, imagine the return of web rings! Lol) or... It will end up being an issue that doesn't matter. Like right now, still coming from video games, MinnMax and Second Wind are two creator-owned platforms that appear to be relatively unpopular, with short amount of thousands of views, except they run off of donations on Patreons and the viewers they do have keep them afloat with a good decent margin.