"We still run our power grids on fossil fuels because they lobby the governemnet to not convert to renewables. Here why that’s your fault because you like entertainment. "
I’ve heard this before, that Netflix creates crazy emissions, but why? Isn’t it just a server sending a video by HTTPS
Also, if this is true, new argument for pirating just dropped.
Streaming or torrenting? Nah, the power it takes to keep those servers running and cooled is enormous.
Buying DVDs? Nah, the manufacture and distribution of those also has an enormous carbon footprint.
Getting the plaintext script from the Internet and making a local theater production out of it? Now THAT’S peak carbon neutrality!
Watching ASCII Star Wars on Telnet to save the planet
Aw man, is that still running?? I remember that
Getting the plaintext script from the Internet and making a local theater production out of it? Now THAT’S peak carbon neutrality!
Ah but what about when you factor in all of the commuting of the actors and staff (each in their own truck, the only PATRIOTIC transportation method) plus the emissions from the production of the costumes and sets, not to mention keeping the theatre running. No, I’m afraid the only neutral form of entertainment are rogue puppet shows and one-person bands.
rogue puppet shows
I can fuck with that
In the future you either watch adverts for entertainment, or seek out the Puppeteers lurking in the sewer system.
I read somewhere that they transcode everything on the fly, which they insist is necessary. The real point though, imo, is that cloud services have to be incredibly energy intensive in order to justify their existence to begin with.
I read somewhere that they transcode everything on the fly, which they insist is necessary
Oh that could be the explanation.
I wonder if the journalists are lying though. It’s not even in Netflix’s corporate interest to use big energy.
I don’t think so. Afaik, factors such as subtitles, different languages, different client hardware, mean that transcoding everything on the fly isn’t quite as crazy as you’d first think. I imagine there’s some sort of DRM stuff too, which is going to take its toll.
But I stand by what I said about the business needing the energy cost in order to justify its existence. It’s not just a question of revenue/expenditure — e.g. constantly needing to expand capacity makes a compelling story for investors. Capitalist efficiency, innit
I think you’ve got it backwards. The energy cost is real, so economies of scale make sense.
I’m not an expert in this field ofc, but I suspect simply serving a file would be way less energy intensive. There are less centralized alternatives too such as torrent streaming, which may or may not be more efficient. It would be nice to exist in an economy where we could explore these questions!
Than encrypting and decrypting for DRM reasons? Yes. But the reason the cloud exists at all is because economies of scale are real.
Just because an economy of scale is real, doesn’t mean the work being done is meaningful or necessary. I’m arguing that the last couple of decades have seen a lot of work being created in order to necessitate traditional ‘economy of scale’ business models — aka a factory with an owner — when other ways of doing things may have been better in terms of global energy efficiency. E.g. the transcoding/compression only needs to happen once for each use case, the whole movie could be buffered rather than maintaining a server connection for the entire runtime. There are examples outside of streaming too ofc, and I’m not saying cloud computing has no use cases — but nobody really believes that the Netflix model is based on sound fundamentals, do they
Simply being alive in a first world country bad for the planet if you take everything into account. The whole system needs to change
Probably because all the servers are powered with fossil fuels.
I don’t think pirating would be better, you are connecting to many different countries…
Piracy is much better because:
a) happens in the background while you do other things (both downloading and uploading)
b) doesn’t usually use dedicated servers which consume a bunch of power for working and cooling (and take up land). In case of streaming services, servers need to be turned on 24/7 whether someone uses them or not. Then there’s the matter of energy used for their massive bandwidth to be able to distribute to all the clients simultaneously.
c) doesn’t use crazy amounts of power for encoding/decoding and compressing/decompressing a stream.
The third reason alone makes piracy a lot more environmentally friendly.
a. okay you can argue that it’s better utilisation of resources not having your pc idle. There is an argument against office computers to be made there.
b makes no sense. The servers serve thousands of people at a time, it is not idling.
I do not have data for this but I’ve noticed that much of the speed I get on torrents come from like top 10 peers all of which are dedicated servers
C. Sure.
My preference has always been for a centralised state owned streaming service. One which allow users to download shit without drm.
It allows routes to be short, minimising hops, also reduces connections made.
Th DRM is the real issue, especially when viewing habits are taken into account. The most watched shows on Netflix for years have been repeat viewings of old sitcoms. The re-watching of shows like Friends, The Office, Seinfeld, etc is especially energy intensive because of DRM. Viewers download the same episode again and again and again, only for the DRM to automatically delete the downloaded file every time. If Netflix was just a folder on a server of DRM-free .mp4 files it would be very efficient.
But it isn’t. Instead, capitalism demands an inefficient over-engineered mess of a system, with a confusing algorithmically reshuffled interface of self-destructing video files so that people can be charged money every month forever and ever.
Good point. All these streaming sites are inefficient by design. Even without the DRM the Server will have to encode the video and audio (or possibly even transcode them if the client only supports certain formats) before sending them to the client. And this happens on the fly every time anyone watches anything. If those streaming sites were all just a fancy looking file server that make you download the source video files directly (kind of like GOG does with video games) then that would greatly reduce energy consumption long-term.
Streaming itself is the problem. Storage is CHEAP. Every human should be able to have enough storage for their media consumption for their lifetime. There is no need to consume a stream for the same piece of media through your entire life.
Number of countries connected to doan have nuffin to do with energy demand.
Blaming the working class for carbon emissions would make sense if we had actual control over government policy.
Imagine being kidnapped, and your kidnapper feeding you meat while berating you for not being vegan.
good thing i pirate everything. it is funny tho, we know for a fact that 100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions. and that’s just the 100 biggest. what percent of global emissions are to be blamed on capitalists if we took the 500 biggest/most profitable corporations? something tells me it would be a crazy number like 95% of emissions come from corporations, if not more. and even then, whatever emissions your average person may be responsible for, it’s entirely in service to the capitalist economy. be it over-consumption or having to commute in a private gas vehicle everywhere they go
You know what uses an absolute fuck ton of power, and that nobody even wants? Advertising. Ban it and youd reduce emissions a lot, but these libs never mention it. Maybe because companies can do anything they want and humans are 2nd class citizens.
Streaming a show shouldn’t use that much power. Using torrents is more efficient than Netflix then.
The CEO of Starbucks takes a private jet 1000 miles every day to micromanage his treat company, but you’re to blame for the planet burning, peasant.
