Video is literally the data elephant in the room. I think we’ll need AI to assist in developing something that demanding in terms of bandwidth. Remember, Youtube just works. No one is going to move to a platform where a video takes 30-60 seconds to load a video and a half an hour to upload a video when a practically instant option exists.
And I may be in the minority here, but so far, Google has been the least nefarious tech giant to my eyes. They haven’t given me adequate reason to disavow them. I’m not saying they’re good, I’m just saying they’re not Musk Twitter, Zuck Meta, or the like. They don’t obfuscate the fact that they sell your data like Meta, and they even understand the value of open source software, rare for a publically traded capitalist corporation. This will probably change, greed rot is universal, and they do treat their creators like dogshit on YouTube. But I’d be shocked if it was reasonably replacable by distributed enthusiasts given current infrastructure and bandwidth pricing. Bigger fish.
Least nefarious ≠ good. Alphabet is still a publicly traded corporation at heart, and they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to turn a profit by any means necessary.
Don’t forget that they got rid of their “Don’t be Evil” motto.
It’s weird that Evil Corporation whose critique is still valid is just not as shitty or simply flies under radar by modern standards. YouTube’s pipeline into conspiracies and demonitization are likely the last I’ve heard of them in negative light, and that’s just a tip of an iceberg. That’s like you can be evil without being cringe.
As far as I can tell Filecoin works by having clients pay to store files on people’s servers so there’s still a question of who is going to pay for it.
Video is literally the data elephant in the room. I think we’ll need AI to assist in developing something that demanding in terms of bandwidth. Remember, Youtube just works. No one is going to move to a platform where a video takes 30-60 seconds to load a video and a half an hour to upload a video when a practically instant option exists.
And I may be in the minority here, but so far, Google has been the least nefarious tech giant to my eyes. They haven’t given me adequate reason to disavow them. I’m not saying they’re good, I’m just saying they’re not Musk Twitter, Zuck Meta, or the like. They don’t obfuscate the fact that they sell your data like Meta, and they even understand the value of open source software, rare for a publically traded capitalist corporation. This will probably change, greed rot is universal, and they do treat their creators like dogshit on YouTube. But I’d be shocked if it was reasonably replacable by distributed enthusiasts given current infrastructure and bandwidth pricing. Bigger fish.
Really? I’d say Apple is the least nefarious. They sell products to customers, they do not sell customers’ attention.
Depends what you value I guess, Apple has set so many terrible precedents for closed systems and walled-gardens.
You’re not wrong, but those same walled gardens keep corporations OUT as much as they keep you IN.
If you like your gardener, no big deal. But if you want azaleas and the gardener prefers daisies, ur out of luck.
I’m watching over Freenet. It may solve this server resources problem hopefully.
Oh wow. I had no idea Freenet was going in this direction. Like IPFS, but better.
How is it better? The big issue with IPFS is fast content discovery. How does Locutus do here? Freenet used to be a resouce hog and dog slow.
The last paragraph is what got to me. Being able to host decentralized services, like messaging, social media, etc.
Least nefarious ≠ good. Alphabet is still a publicly traded corporation at heart, and they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to turn a profit by any means necessary.
Don’t forget that they got rid of their “Don’t be Evil” motto.
It’s weird that Evil Corporation whose critique is still valid is just not as shitty or simply flies under radar by modern standards. YouTube’s pipeline into conspiracies and demonitization are likely the last I’ve heard of them in negative light, and that’s just a tip of an iceberg. That’s like you can be evil without being cringe.
300 Petabytes is nothing. The Filecoin network alone has 20 EiB available. There must be more data than that on Youtube
Edit: Maybe there isn’t, but that would render the problem very easy
As far as I can tell Filecoin works by having clients pay to store files on people’s servers so there’s still a question of who is going to pay for it.
Users could have to pay 0.005$ for each 20min video each year. I don’t think that’s a problem