Hi, my post is focusing specifically on YouTube since I observed the following categories have less intrusive solutions or privacy focused solutions, even if they are paid:

  • Operating Systems (Linux, for example)
  • Instant Messaging (Element, for example)
  • Community Messaging (Revolt, for example)
  • E-Mail (Proton, for example)
  • Office (libreoffice, for example)
  • Password Managers (Bitwarden, for example)

However, how do we distribute videos and watch them without data collection? I am NOT asking how do I use a privacy-focused front-end for YouTube, by the way, I am aware they exist.

I am wondering how we obtain a FOSS solution to something super critical such as YouTube. It is critical since it contains a lot of educational content (I’d wager more than any other platform), and arguably the most informative platform, despite having to filter through a lot of trash. During COVID, we even saw lecturers from universities upload their content on YouTube and telling students to watch those lectures. (I have first-hand experience with this at a respectable university).

I refuse to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

  • monobot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t have solution for videos, but I am moving back to podcasts and rss as much as possible. I want to be ready when they finally forbbid watching without ads.

    But I must admit content creators are not helping, content for most of them become just job to be done with. I am aware it is not their fault and that yt is pushing them, but content is geting worse.

    It is hard to compete with platform that is loosing so much money. They will also buy anyone who tries. Maybe if we start being satisfied with one resolution and quality, but that will never happen.

    • toastal@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      …Agreed & real weird to see a specific client mentioned instead of a protocol.

  • Anonymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Look at the strangler pattern in microswrvice architecture. Applying this to your scenario, set up a front end to YouTube, cache the results locally (probably host in a place that allows it). Also host videos from other platforms like peertube. Once you have a lot of users, slowly prioritize “free” videos over YT content.

    It’s not likely to happen, but it’s the pattern that FB uses to present news. First they showed a link to the story and you’d click through, then they required more of the story, then when all were hooked, they demanded the whole story to be displayed, effectively stealing all the users and the ability to advertise.

  • DARbarian@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Pray that Google enshittifies YouTube enough for any amount of creators to migrate to Peertube

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The big problem is there are a lot of good creators who are only able to be good creators in large part because of the YouTube ad revenue they get. They would otherwise have to work normal jobs and not be able to devote the time or resources to their videos. I have little faith that enough viewers would actually pay enough money to offset the ad revenue that supports many creators. Without a way to realistically replace that financial stream there is a large chunk of YouTube that can’t migrate. Of course, that’s no loss with some of the content mills churning out crap to try and cash in on the revenue, but I’ve seen plenty of good stuff that I’m not sure would exist another way.

  • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m not sure if you can replace YouTube. It’s too popular and has been a mainstay of the Internet for 19 years. We won’t be able to convince people to just up and leave YouTube.

    Best case scenario is to lead by example and start sharing videos from PeerTube.

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Twitter’s different IMO. It relies on the network effect, whereas YouTubers get paid.

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          were not talkin about the small number of creators. its all about the audience . though i see what youre sayin… chicken and egg kind of thing… its ok, google is making it hard on them

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not only that, I am certain Google will put as much money as needed into it not to allow any competing platform.

      YT is not profitable, but gives them data, power and control.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I am NOT asking how do I use a privacy-focused front-end for YouTube, by the way, I am aware they exist.

      • electricprism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        My bad needed more coffee

        The prior verbiage threw me off.

        how do we distribute videos and watch them without data collection?

        So opinion answer to the latter. Opinion answer. Don’t ignore YouTube.

        Steam didn’t ignore Win32 and ask 10k devs to port to Linux. They partnered up with CodeWeavers, WINE and others to create Proton and it made the former task largely unnecessary.

        Expand federated video services to cache all videos they stream in case the original gets dunked on. And then at the same time grow the platform.

        A subsection of FOSS hates wealth, but people need to be able to lift themselves out of poverty, there has to be a profit motive and that profit has to largely go to the content creators.

        Without motives and incentives you can build the most beautiful codebase ever and it won’t take off.

        Mass censorship is coming, so platforms that don’t censor and host in countries where this is legally protected will have the advantage of growing new mega sites.

  • 0laura@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This seems like one of the few problems where crypto might actually be useful. It would allow people to automatically and anonymously pay both the creator and the host of that video. Maybe make it a federated system and every host gets paid based on how many Bytes they send. The creator gets a share of that money and the whole system uses something like Monero or whatever. Not sure what the costs of that would be, but I assume its not too outrageous. If it was, YouTube wouldn’t be able to exist.

      • 0laura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Basically, but I’m not sure how well it’ll work longterm due to the website not really contributing anything to the system afaik. Though I have to admit I haven’t looked that far into it, just posting my notreallyeducated guess. https://lbry.com/faq/host-content

    • makeasnek@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      People are working on this for general decentralized storage, some of them have existed and been functional for 5+ years, I’m not familiar with all the names but there’s jstor (jstore?), filecoin, etc. When you have a system where you need to manage a database (and everybody’s copy of the database is the same) but you need to do it in a decentralized, P2P way, blockchain is really the only solution. A system which records who is hosting what and allows people to buy & sell storage is exactly this: a database with some buy/sell frontend.

      • 0laura@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        That’s true, you’d definitely have to charge more than what YouTube makes with ads. But I don’t think Google would keep YouTube alive if it generated only like, 10% of the money it costs them to operate.

        Edit: That’s why I said “it’s probably not too outrageous”, I know that YouTube probably operates at a loss, but I don’t think the cost is so great that noone would pay to fund a service like that. Though I’m obviously just guessing, I might be totally wrong

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I have thought about creating a video series that is distributed via torrent, that could be a decent idea…

  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    If you’re a creator, upload to Peertube and Youtube, and promote Peertube on your Youtube channel. It’s a compromise, but it’s the only realistic way to pull viewers over if you’re not already a popular creator. Also provide some incentives to use Peertube instead of Youtube, like early uploads.

    If you’re a viewer, use Peertube; and when you need to use Youtube, use a 3rd party client like pipe-viewer. Don’t support ad culture, donate to creators you like instead.

    Proton as a private alternative to Gmail

    lol, lmao

      • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh I understand it, and I also understand that laws can be wrong and corrupt, and shouldn’t always be followed. If you think how law-abiding a corporation is is more important than protecting privacy of activists, maybe that shows your true colors.

          • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Good point! Trusting law-abiding corporations to protect your privacy is fundamentally a bad idea, and as such, promoting Proton as a private alternative to Google (compared to say, self hosting on a bulletproof VPS like buyvm) is harming users and promoting corporate propaganda.

              • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                But self-hosting your own 100% bulletproof MailCow server on 1984 VPS, which you pay for in Monero won’t make you any more private, because emails you send still end up on Gmail inboxes.

                How does sending mail to gmail affect my privacy? If I’m sending encrypted mail to gmail, only that one mail is compromised once decrypted on gmail’s servers. Any mail sent to any other server is fine. Do you only send mail to gmail users or something?

                It’s simply unneccesary for normal user with not so high threat model. And if you’re a political activist, then why even using email instead of normal privacy communication solutions like SimpleX, Session or Matrix?

                smtp is no better or worse than xmpp, irc or whatever else if you have end to end encryption. Proton decided to lie in their privacy policy that they don’t log IPs, which ended up fucking this activist because they started logging after a sneaky targeted court order, and then edited their privacy policy after the fact like the shitty little rats they are.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    you offer content creators a better revenue share to make content for the new service while offering the same level of stability. there’s a reason why nobody has done it.

  • banazir@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I refuse to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

    I don’t think you quite understand just how stupendous the amount of data Google processes from YouTube alone is. There is basically no way for hobbyists to provide an equivalent service. Very few companies have those kinds of resources. If you want, you can of course try running a PeerTube instance, but you rather quickly run in to problems with scaling.

    I find it almost miraculous YouTube exists to begin with. It is no accident Google has very few competitors on that front, and I don’t think YouTube is even profitable for them. Without Google’s deep pockets and interest in monopolizing the market, YouTube would have withered a long time ago.

    Trust me, I want a solution too. But 500 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute. All of that is processed, re-encoded, and saved with multiple bitrates. You can’t compete with that. YouTube might eventually keel over from Enshittification and its own impossibility, but replacing it with anything meaningful will be a challenge.

    • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Counter-point : every single one of the videos uploaded to youtube already lives on the creators hard drive, usually in a much larger format. All that’s needed is for them to create torrents for them.

      • mrpants@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think the largest challenge though is maintaining the distribution and managing the associated upfront costs.

        Existing large content producers could likely afford to handle this but new producers could struggle paying to seed their content.

        Though I do think overall this is more achievable than people give it credit for:

        • YT videos don’t need huge bandwidth for a sustained period; only for short bursts. Most views come in within a week.
        • Content is probably localized to specific countries. Less need to replicate across the globe.
        • Let the source prefer to seed the highest quality and other peers downsample and replicate as needed.
        • Doesn’t need YT scale. Tons of YT “content” is spammers leeching essentially free hosting from YT. No one needs to seed their videos if they don’t want to.
        • 1080p is still fine for YT videos. h265 is very efficient (though downsampling 265 isn’t great). Don’t need 4k for most videos.
    • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’d have agreed but hundreds of fmovies and similar sites exist on the high seas that provide free streaming of millions of HD content (movies, web series, etc.) somehow. They use some third-party video host that is magically able to concurrently serve millions of people.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Maybe the solution to YouTube is something similar to BitTorrent. It would make more sense for the protocol to preload the first chunk and to use a codec that can start with a lower res image and then fill in the resolution in subsequent passes. And on the front end, something like Lemmy would work, where channels and posts can be federated.

        Considering the number of people who have 1gps symmetric bandwidth today, such a system should be able to technically work.

        But nobody’s designed it yet AFAIK.

      • reddithalation@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        the infrastructure of the pirate streaming sites is impressive, but I bet that is still orders of magnitude easier than hosting youtube.

      • Ilandar@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Those sites just scrape from many different file hosting sites. They don’t pay for that storage themselves.

    • cobysev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      […] I don’t think YouTube is even profitable for them.

      Correct. Even Google, one of the richest companies in the world, is struggling to afford the massive infrastructure required to run YouTube. That’s why they’ve been cracking down on ad-blocking software lately.

      Also, this is likely why they’ve been pushing their new updated Chromium-based infrastructure for web browsers, which will prevent ad-blockers from working on websites. If you’re not using Firefox or Safari to browse the Internet by now, you should switch. They’re the only independent browsers not using the Chromium framework.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Restaurants don’t take steaks off the menu because they aren’t are profitable as salads. One date wants a salad, the other wants steak, they make less profit on the steak plate, but the average of the two is profit enough.

        It’s ridiculous to look at any one service of these behemoth monopolies as an island - They are one collective thought, EVERY SINGLE PIECE does not have to be to enshittified to generate the biggest possible profit.

      • Mihies@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’d even buy subscription if it was a family one without music bundled for a reasonable price. No such luck in my country.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      While I do agree with you, I also see twitch, TikTok and Patreon presenting models that are quite competitive with YouTube.

      From a privacy perspective, free junk content like TikTok, YouTube and twitch will always be hard coupled with targeted advertising.

      But Patreon (and onlyfans for that matter) do offer a model that can work without ads.

      In fact, if Patreon also introduced an ad-supported tier and allowed you to more broadly see other content aside from the direct person you sponsor, it could probably grow quite a lot.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago
        1. Tiktok is a company comparable in scale to Google. 130Bn in revenue last year.

        2. Patreon is nowhere near the scale of YouTube. But I also think it’s the only viable solution to privacy and supporting creators.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Honestly the biggest thing all of us is missing to take it down is financial capital.

    To get the kind of capital you need to take down YouTube, you need investment money from the kind of investors who will force you to enshittify to afford paying them back.

    The financial issue is the biggest one, when it comes to any and all of these.

    • misery mansion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are two YouTubes. One is the “creator” YouTube, algorithms, numbers blah blah

      The other is the actual content creator YouTube. These are the channels that people actually follow. If captain disillusion set up his own RSS feed for videos, and I had the method to subscribe to it, I’d no longer need YouTube

      The argument that YouTube has the algorithm and recommendations etc is moot, that’s the same job that every network does, you could absolutely replace this

      The video content would have to be self hosted probably. How it used to be. So we need all these tools to eat YouTube’s lunch

  • bizarroland@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The biggest issue I’ve always heard people say when it comes to replacing a video hosting service like YouTube is needing storage space and bandwidth.

    I feel like ipfs, the interplanetary file system, could be leveraged to do this but it would require a concerted effort to make a fast, stable, reliable, and federated YouTube replacement, and I imagine that we would need people to financially support it.

  • bluGill@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Peertube exists. Use it.

    now I will admit that peertube is lacking content, but when you make something put it there. When you want something search there first and check out youtube last. This rewards those who publish there with your eyeballs

  • _MusicJunkie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Money. Lots and lots of it.

    Hosting video on a significant scale is very expensive. Stupendously expensive.

    Convincing people to join is also going to cost a lot of money. Consumers are on YT because creators are there, and they are already used to the platform. Creators are there because the consumers are there. And there is a robust infrastructure to make a living from content creation.

    Financing is especially difficult for such a project, because companies are willing to pay way more for targeted ads. For which you need some data about your users. The more data you collect, the better the and targeting can be, the more companies are willing to pay.
    Assuming there are enough users for companies to pay for advertising at all.