We'll just copy the video and recast without ads I guess? I do watch several videos many times over for diy, so it would be relatively painless to just download and modify.
it won't though, because you can just remove that 30 seconds at the beginning, which is almost definitely going to be very different than the rest of the video in a number of ways. Notably, there are likely going to be UI differences during and after ads play, as well as video playback alterations. Ad's aren't going to be the same quality as video itself.
It's possible that they're transcoding them into the video itself, but doing that would be catastrophically bad and have such a massive cost that it simply would not be worthwhile.
They are transcoding them into the video. Sponsorblock had to make a quick change to discard submissions from users that have been identified to be on this trial system, because it affects the video length, and as such - makes it impossible to have consistent segments
i highly doubt it. I would think they're probably doing some UDP packet voodoo bullshit.
Though it likely appears as transcoded.
The sheer cost of them being transcoded into videos is immense, even if they're live encoding every video.
What happens when you get an ad you need to takedown and remove? You're on disk transcode is suddenly useless now, and you need to make a new one, easy enough, you can just do that in the background, but this also means your ads are baked into each video, which is less than ideal, unless you're constantly updating them.
And if you're doing live transcodes, that means that you have to do this for every view on every video, and i'm not sure that's sustainable.
I suppose you could probably do a cached live transcode system to bring down the overhead, but i can't imagine it's easier than just pulling some voodoo networking bullshit to literally inject an advertisement.
AFAIK there is no need to re-encode, since Youtube videos are stored and served in chunks anyways. The change is that they are now slipping in the ad chunks as if they were a part of the normal video chunk stream.
Good. This is how YouTube dies. This is how Google dies. This is how competitors/alternatives are born. Stop fighting to make Google services useable against every effort of theirs. Let them drive people away to make (or discover) alternatives.
Wishfull thinking. Sadly the truth.
It's nearly impossible to have that high of a federation and preventing a centralization to not loose any videos (except if the creators chose so).
It’s owned and populated by history and science/engineering YouTubers, so if you’re not usually watching that side of YouTube, you might not find much on Nebula for you.
Do you have any idea how many billions with a B it would take to even start a viable, proper competitor to youtube? and how quickly that capital B could end up becoming a Capital T?
I hate people who keep screaming about let youtube die and alternatives will be born.
Youtube has been shit for years. No ones made an alternative that is viable.
Any an all alternatives are subscription based services, and tiny. Like Floatplane, Utreon and whatever the gunfocused one is that I cant remember off the top of my head, if it even still exists.
Anyone that has that kinda money are probably already in bed with googles capitalistic hellscape ideals for hte internet and not interested in going against them.
Creating competitors for things like Reddit and Facebook are relatively easy. Creating a competitor for something that probably accumulates hundreds of terabytes, if not more, per hour? That takes insane amounts of storage, and bandwidth, and overhead, and everything else that costs more than any regular person could ever have a hope of even having a wet dream over.
If you tried to create a centralized one? Yeah, it would take a lot. Would a decentralized one be as expensive? I'm not sure.
I think the best goal would be to try to create a platform for creators that has a low barrier to entry - both in terms of cost and skill - that gives them the ability to easily and quickly set up a "channel" to "broadcast" from and earn some revenue somehow.
Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?
Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?
Because thats the very reason why people hate current streaming services, and you're arguing to not only make it worse than that, but to make the end users eat the costs of storage and bandwidth.
The protocol isn't the hard part. It's the monetizing that is. Creators aren't looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.
Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn't ideal...
Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it's not being monetized
Also it's worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.
Patreon is irrelevant, that's just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it's essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.
Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren't going to financial contribute. It's the age old "why don't you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time", that hasn't been true before and likely isn't here. Creators aren't looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we're used to today)
Yet bittorrent does youtube fives times over with central governance. You have drunk too much cloud coolaid. My laptop could host my youtube channel without issue and I would still have enough juice to play counter strike and download the latest marvel slop movie.
Boy howdy, users sure would love to pivot to a peer distributed content system that randomly downloads chunks of a video file as they become available with speeds of anywhere between 2 bytes and 2 megabytes a second (which one you'll get depends on who you're getting the chunks from) with literally no guarantee of being able to even complete said download because the people they're downloading it from may not all have the entire file's worth of combined data across their respective computers, and they have to download the entire video before watching it to determine whether or not they even want to watch it in the first place. Also, there's no capacity for monetization without literally doing what Google is trying to do and injecting advertisements directly into the video, so there's no incentive for any content producers to use this system to distribute said content, meaning it would be a ghost town of a service from the start.
If the file is that poorly seeded, and therefore extremely sparsely watched, then the laptop with a broken screen in my closet can serve it to anyone who wants it.
The only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand / broad appeal media and in that case, what you describe WON'T happen.
For low demand media, https off my mom's coffemaker will do just fine.
That means anyone posting 100-200 video to youtube today, can easily handle all these situation with less expense than the price of whatever camera they filmed the content with to begin with.
Youtube only exists, because us, old internet fucks, got lazy and relied on google for mail and video.
A service people want to use is typically one with redundancy and high availability. Your laptop could overheat, have a drive failure, spontaneously lose its wifi connection, or a million other things. It's fundamentally unreliable.
only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand
Scalability isn't just about distribution. It's about reliability and convenience - two things your system as described lacks by design. A video file that no one but you has ever seen has the same exact degree of accessibility as one served to millions.
We could EASILY EASILY EASILY done it ourselves.
This is the copium talking. If it had been easy to do and monetizable, it would have already been done. That's the other part of the problem here. There is no incentive for anyone to use this system to consume or distribute content other than to decouple from Google. Opposition to an existing service is not enough of a motivator for people to use a system. It has to provide some comparative benefit that outweighs the cost incurred by continuing to use the other service. The big thing that Youtube has is, obviously, content. Exabytes of it. Your new service would have...nothing. We have left the age of services starting up and gaining massive movements of people behind them. We are now in an age of the internet in which the inertia of existing services will carry them decades into the future. Youtube is now too big to fail, and too big to be replaced.
Blockbuster died because its business model was rendered obsolete by virtue of widespread adoption of the internet and the advent of streaming. And because it refused to shift its business model away from physical media distribution to digital. Let me know when they invent something that makes the internet obsolete, will you? Because that is what it will take to dethrone YouTube.
Because that is what it will take to dethrone YouTube.
I think YouTube will eventually end up destroying itself. It's not a profitable business model to just run some ads. The amount of storage, bandwidth, and processing power a video host requires is massive.
We are in the age of the toy internet, it is all about to crumple like a house of card bought on cheap credit and unviable business models.
Youtube is not long for this world and nobody will miss it.
The only question is how much of it Archive Team can save before if goes up in flames.
Well, the good parts of it, that's easy but can we save the garbage too, I'm not sure.
Take any channel on youtube and its creator can easily serve it's entire catalog out of a obsolete chromebox with two usb sticks on the side.
Even as small as a terabyte would still be mostly empty space.
Youtube was built defective by design using 1970s ideology, it is immensely wasteful.
I want to see how you can serve thousands or millions of people with a Chromebook in your closet. And if you say p2p, that doesn't deal with spikes in demand and a lot of old content will just vanish even easier than on YouTube. Also it would rely on people being willing to seed.
The main limitation is the 1 gigabit network. It can push out 260 3megabit streams or 50 15megabit streams at the most.
That's already an enormous amount of concurrent viewers that covers 99% of content on youtube.
To achieve this, you can't be wasting processing power anywhere, a straight copy to network from pre encoded files, no live transcoding.
No scripting, no encryption either. If you really need that, which you almost certainly don't, then install a recerse proxy on your openwrt router.
Now, if you want to scale, which almost no video really needs, then you'll send the client a script. The client is a source of inifinite scaling, compute and bandwidth.
Each client just needs to rebroadcast two streams of the file.
As excess clients connect, you tell them to get the stream from the stun/turn server. This punches through both sides of the nat. And puts two clients in communication. First client sends its copies of the received stream chunks, with preference from the beginning of the file. One client can get the stream from multiple other client and once it has a few stream chunks in the cache it can serve them to new clients.
It doesn't take many doublings before you have more bandwidth than the whole internet. All the logic for organisation, hash checking, stream block ordering etc etc is a small text file from the server, signed by the server's certificate. It runs entirely inside the client's browser.
I'm feeling like this whole "distrubuted youtube!" argument is nothing but a variant of the blockchain fantasy. Seeing a lot of the same style of arguments and ignorance.
Its also a common trap for idiots to grasp hold of a fraction of a fragment of an idea and think it gives them complete and total understanding, and then go around proselytizing their absolute incompetence as if its techno-gospel.
Which I think is why this distributed youtube bull follows the same general argument trend as the mythical and holy blockchain. That does nothing, but somehow can magically solve all problems.
We solved this problem BEFORE youtube was even a thing.
Youtube only exists out of convenience for normies.
Youtube can die tomorrow, we will still have unlimited video.
In fact, think youtube slowed down innovation on this front.
Torrent trackers are unchanged in their form from 2003.
I wouldn't mind federated content, browser integration of torrent systems and locally running content recommendation system as well as social crowdsourced review systems (aka the like button and comments)
My laptop can copy files at 15 mbps, very very easily.
Hundreds ? Again piss easy, that's what bittorrents are for, even easier when the swarms takes care of all the traffic.
The more people are 10 or so and the faster it will copy itself.
Do you cloud people still know how to copy files or was that arcane knowledge lost to the sands of 1995 ?
I hate the cloud you perfidious incompetent. The only thing more stupid than the "cloud" is your belief that you can serve hundreds, if not thousands, of simultaneous streams,possibly 1080, most likely 4k, from your 15mbps laptop.
You are correct.
Nearly all youtube channels can be fully served off a single laptop. 260 concurrent streams at 1080p 3mbps is achievable over gigabit ethernet. Very few channels exceed this for any appreciable amount of time. And in those cases we can leverage a very small amount of the client's ressources to further propagate the stream. This can be done with repurposed bittorrent dht.
Now all we need is federated RSS and a locally running content curation algorithm and a social review system (like buttons and reputation history)
I like this idea so much. Do the public libraries not have some kind of video service already? Seems like a network of library-powered PeerTube instances would serve that niche really well.
Used to put up with this back when Hulu was free. Adblockers weren't as sophisticated then, so I had to watch 2 minutes of a black screen every commercial break. Still better than watching ads.
Finally a use case where AI/Machine learning would absolutely make sense. If we can have AI that can generate text or images, imitate people's voices or write code, we can also have a lightweight model that can detect ads and skip them during playback. There's a model trained on SponsorBlock data for detecting sponsored segments https://github.com/xenova/sponsorblock-ml
I'm sure that we can have something similar but for embedded ads.
Give it 5 more years in hardware performance improvements and software/model optimization and I don't see a problem. The important part is that improvements are made public for everyone to use and improve upon instead of letting openai and microsoft take the whole cake
It's called a classifier and it could easily detect an embedded ad. The issue is now everyone needs to run it on their hardware to detect and this will cost some electricity.
Do you understand what we're still talking less energy than the monitor it displays on.
I would bet even untuned VGG16 could do that without even a fine tune. Advertising is starkly different to content and the output is a "ad=yes/no" signal. It's a very small amount of data, probably less than the plain hardware video decoder.
It's also not a new type of load, it runs off the same power supply as any computer, a slight capacitive load, it won't even change the grid powerfactor.
Ads have definitely added more load on electrical grids in aggregate than locally hosted and lightweight models, especially given that ads are fucking everywhere all the time. Websites, apps, the servers, even 24/7 electric billboards. I'm not worried about a few nerds using slightly more electricity sometimes for their own benefit and joy (it's still less power than gaming), as opposed to a corp that burns through power and breaks their climate pledges (Microsoft) for the benefit of their bottom line and nothing else. Corps don't get to have a monopoly on AI that was built with our data, only to have it fed back to us to pull more data and siphon more money.
Yup, and I'm not willing to pay for Youtube Premium because the app kinda sucks and I don't like Google keeping track of what I watch. I'm willing to pay, but I'd really like to keep using the 3rd party apps I prefer (Grayjay and NewPipe).
So like Reddit, I'll drop Youtube if my 3rd party apps stop working. That's my line in the sand. If Youtube wants to get money from me, it needs to be through an API disassociated from my identity.
Youtube is aware that serving ads to people who hate ads is going to reduce these brands' value, right? I thought that was the reason they were ok with adblockers before...
If the amount of people that just put up with ads currently instead of switching to Firefox is anything to go by, I think the number of people who truly care is less that you might think. Especially when YouTube is such a monopoly.
Youtube doesn't pay attention to what ads get approved, or where they get served. Ive heard stories of people getting served two hours full amateur movies as ads, Ive heard of people getting soft core porn served as an ad, to actual scams and crypto pitches. It's like Facebooks new AI enabled algorithm. There is actual danger, considering children and the elderly get sucked in to youtubes black hole?
I watched a couple videos on the Diddy case, and a couple days later my whole feed was filled with the worst conspiracy theories and Christian preachers.
I watch one Youtuber talking about pyramids, YouTube fills my whole suggestions with ancient alien conspiracies.
I watched one cover of a song, I get recommended the same song for weeks.
I watch one reaction video, the whole feed turns into reaction videos within minutes.
It's a fight against the algorhytm and it isn't fun. It's incredible how dumb it is after all these years, and those algprhythms are partly to blame that everyone feels more miserable than they are.
I just turn off recommendations (disable watch history) and use a third party app where I can disable recommendations (Grayjay and NewPipe). I just want my subscriptions and search, that's all.
I don't login. Grayjay/NewPipe doesn't send any data to its servers, so they're not tracking viewed content. I also get subscriptions and playlists (again, w/o Youtube account) in addition to the features I mentioned. Afaik, you can't get any of that with addons.
Make a fair payment model. No classic subscription. But pay per watched minute, and when you hit a certain amount of minutes, every additional minute is free.
Do you actually understand how this works?
It’s a beautiful statement and oh so noble, but it just flies against how the world really works.
At some point, maybe not today, but at some point, you’re going to be saving up for your retirement. Your money will be invested; either passively or actively. If active, a fund manager (or maybe even yourself) will be spending time, every single day, wondering how to maximise the invested cash. If passive, you’re letting a WHOLE lot of fund managers make the decisions for you (wisdom of the crowd). Either way, Google better fucking perform or the investors will go elsewhere.
And you’ll be an investor too, asking for Google to do better than anyone else or you’ll take your savings elsewhere.
If investors go elsewhere then they're trading for a higher risk and return ratio than a massive company with rich history like Google. Plus, it frequently performs large buybacks and offers, and even offered a dividend recently. There is always going to be something attractive to investors, here.
Agreed there is a mix of things Google can do to remain attractive. But at the core, Google has to be a better investment than something else to remain invested into.
One thing I genuinely don't get: why does a company making this much money need "investors"? (Other than participating in the make-rich-people-richer scheme)
You aren't an investor if you are planning to resell. Day trading and real investment are totally at odds. It's far better (for retirement) to invest in a stable company and get a set return over time for it. We also don't even need to do that for retirement, the fact that we do is fucking insane.
You’re arguing against the world that is. I’m just trying to explain the behaviour, not necessarily condone it.
A pension fund manager may not move in and out of stocks on a daily basis, but at some point they’re going to take a look at how their portfolio is doing and react.
Millennials and zoomers are not saving up for retirement, barely able to sustain themselves. They're also expecting ecological collapse to cause global famine or their own nation to go full Reich, assuming they're not killed by hurricanes, wildfire or war.
Agreed, many young people can’t save. That’s why I said “maybe not today, but at some point”. I’m not saying it’s easy for young people, I’m trying to explain why companies seek to increase profitability and that almost every investor is self-centred.
First, individually targeted advertisement should be illegal. Instead of trying to figure out who I am and serving me ads based on that, they should only be able to look at server side facts. What is the video? This is how television and radio ads have worked for ages. You have a video about SomePopBand, you advertise concert tickets. You have a video about bikes, you advertise bike stuff. You don't know who I am. Suddenly, the motivation for most of the privacy invading, stalking, nonsense is gutted.
Some people would still block those static ads. If they showed some restraint, I think more people would accept them. But that's a sad joke- no profit driven org is going to show restraint.
Secondly, if they can't ethically run the business at a profit, the business probably doesn't deserve to exist. That or it's a loss leader to get people into the ecosystem.
You do know you can enter into your Google settings and disable all tracking and targeting, right? And you can ask them to delete all information they already hold on you.
Yes right. But what does the investor environment look like today? Profit, not users, is what everyone is counting. If Google says “we’re burning cash in all businesses but search, but hey we’re nice”, investors will take their investments to more profitable businesses.
They actually have a pretty huge net profit margin and what basically amounts to a monopoly on advertisement, so even if their ads reached less intended targets it wouldn't hurt their bottom line much.
Let me buy an API token anonymously, similar to how Mullvad works. I'm happy to pay for what I watch, but I don't want to be tracked at all, and I don't trust their internal settings.
Until that's a thing, I'll watch without an account using an ad-blocker. Give me that experience with the apps I use (Grayjay and NewPipe), and I'll pay.
They could use their monopolies to force advertisers to pay a fair amount for a decent ad instead of taking pennies to ruin the Internet. I never even considered using an ad blocker back when it was just banner ads. Or maybe they could stop being a full decade behind the times and add donations to YouTubers for a cut. If they add value to premium instead of trying to remove value from the base experience they could even triple dip on these ideas.
The internet was a mistake. We had a good run. Lot of fun was had, but it hasn't made anyone's life better. I say we roll things back to the ARPANET days. The internet should exclusively be used for disseminating post-graduate level academic research and DOD projects. Everyone else can read the newspaper on their train ride in their full 3 piece suits to their union job at the business factory.
No, FAANG is killing the internet
We kill them, internet good again
Or else, I laser off the optics from soviet early launch satellites and ... well. .. you know
It's too late now, but only if they didn't put so many ads in the first place, less people would be blocking them. They could also make YouTube premium affordable by removing all the features except "no ads".
Some time ago I would've bought YouTube premium, but it had so many features I didn't want driving up the price that I just didn't. I instead switched to Firefox and ads were gone again. Good job google, drove me off YouTube premium and Google chrome at the same time.
They should but easy to say than done. In the end they will return back to it if no better or at least equal alternatives are out there to fill the vacuum.
Yup, I'm investigating alternatives like Nebula and generally reducing my YouTube use, but that's not going to work for a lot of people. The Grayjay app helps a lot.
This is such a weird take. There is 20 years of content on youtube and not just like, unboxing videos or AI generated kid stuff or whatever. Theres family recordings and DIY vids for literally everything, to college courses from like, Yale and Harvard, to vocational videos I use for my job. All of the videos that radicalized me into an Ancom on are youtube. Every song ever recorded, including rare songs like second hand accounts of slave field hymns. Old, obscure movies, especially where the copyright holder doesnt give a fuck, are available for free. Small indie projects, like small groups producing shorts, and small bands making their own music, are on youtube. And yes, millions of hours of people playing video games, or sports high lights, or wrestling high lights, or video essays or whatever, are all on youtube.
The world is the way it is. Do I wish the web was more diversified? I do. Do I wish Alphabet didnt have us over a barrel like this? Of course. But youtube is almost a utility at this point; its like saying dont use the roads bro, eventually they will listen to us and put in light rail tracks. I would love for that to happen but you gotta get to work in the mean time.
YT spent the last 15 years stomping out all competition, so now that they have accomplished that, they jack up the rates... (or in this case jack up the ads)
People will find a way to get around it, I could see buffering a video for 5 mins or even downloading the entire video ala locally playing podcasts, then using AI or some type of frame analyzation technique t to skip ads. Or just skip them like good old fashion Tivo from your player.
server side video ad injection means they could vary the placement of the ad, so things like sponsorblock which relies on the segment being in the exact same place all the time would not be very effective
When I have to wade through sixteen different "Would you like to join YouTube Plus!?!?!?!" pop-ups every time I whisper the words "online video" in the direction of my phone, I'm rarely inclined to use YouTube to begin with. Its a bad fucking service.
My TV doesn't pull this shit on me. I get Show -> Ads -> Show -> Ads in regularly spaced intervals, like I'm a civilized human being. I don't get WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET SLIGHTLY FEWER ADS!!!!! GIVE ME $8$12$15 $20!!!!! every time the fucking thing turns on.
