Skip Navigation

Posts
2
Comments
180
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You can already do that with PeerTube proper.

  • Imagine if they broke viewing for all of the countless cheap (and e-waste) phones, tablets, low end IOT devices, “smart TVs”, and so on because they place a requirement that the device cannot meet. Those users will not throw away their hardware - they’ll migrate to the first available alternative way to watch content.

    Not-so-fun fact, this is exactly what ATSC 3 is trying to do for OTA broadcast TV.

  • They'd sooner replace those users with home-grown AI slop the way they're moving right now.

  • The end game is to take full control. If Google implements Widevine on YT, and especially Widevine L1, that'll be their Hiroshima bomb for both third-party front-ends and downloaders, and even non-Android, ChromeOS, Apple, or Windows platforms as far as OS goes and non-Chrome or Edge browsers.

    Like, say Google implemented Widevine L1 on YT streams at some point in the future, it would be entirely feasible that you'd be looking at Netflix-style lockdowns to Edge on Win11, or even Chrome on Win11 for that matter, with both SecureBoot and TPM2 in place, if you wanted to watch YT on PC in the future, else you'd be limited to Rokus to watch it.

  • Lessee, recent censorship issues, the fact that you can get demonetized or straight-up struck down if you say something Google don't like, the fact that your channel can and will get taken down if Google don't like you....

  • Couldn't posting your normal content to PeerTube or whatever, and then selling premium content on Nebula to fund the would-be free PeerTube portion, be a potentially viable model vs. gaming the AdSense system on YT and hoping for the best?

    Like, if you cover the same niche as Not Just Bikes, for example, but replace YT with PeerTube, that could maybe work provided you have a big enough following.

  • At least you own your content on those platforms, PeerTube especially if self-hosted, and not Google. If you self-host a PeerTube instance using local hardware, for example, no one can take it down on a whim but you.

    With YT, Google can and will nuke your channel for any reason they see fit.

  • Not on my end.

  • For now, it's probably going to break at some point too. Invidious, FreeTube, and Grayjay are all screwed atm, and yt-dlp can be fixed by installing Deno and the PyPi version of that front-end though.

  • Otoh, you also have Odysee and PeerTube to move your own content to.

  • You could always get binders to stick them in to save space that way.

  • I'm not so sure I would recommend 7Digital anymore since they've been delisting a lot of stuff lately, meaning even if you already bought it, you can't download it anymore.

    Also, if you plan on building up a mainly digital collection, I wouldn't use lossy codecs like MP3 for my main files, instead opting for FLAC or some other lossless codec, which can then be safely transcoded to a lossy copy at will.

  • Yeah it is, and it's their fault that it is.

    Google has no right to say the open web is in decline, when they're the main cause of it, this is basically them saying, 'Yeah, we won this stupid war that we started, screw you, peons,' this comes off like if MS broke WINE and then admitted no one uses desktop Linux anymore, it will have been their faults that hypothetical scenario happened, this is what Google saying the open web is in decline when it's largely their fault that it is comes off as to me.

  • Mastodon's main code repo is on GitHub, a government could just pressure MS to take down that repo, although that isn't going to account for anyone self-hosting an instance and also hosting their own git repos outside of any of the major hosts.

    In order to take down self-hosted instances, they'd have to raid people's homes and take out their physical servers assuming they have physical servers in their place.

  • Blocking the domains connected to it is one way I can think of.

  • Nepal went full iron curtain. Hope the EU, US, and UK don't get any ideas....

  • Couldn't the US hypothetically put a clause in some 'online safety' law conveniently deanonymizing Tor given they own most of the exit nodes?