I know, the platform isn’t ready, the platform needs more creators, the platform has technical improvements to do…We could have said the same for Lemmy before the Reddit blackout, the same for Mastodon on Twitter.

The main limitation I see at the moment are PeerTube instances, badly communicating, from what I’ve been able to realize, and there are no reference instances as it was for Lemmy.

#viralhashtag

    • Danileonis OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never heard. We shouldn’t worry about what some creators want to do, and we certainly shouldn’t sponsor yet another centralized platform.

        • pragmakist@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Newbies, as in creators who aren’t good, yet, are going to go whatever platform that they can actually get on.

          At the moment that’s a self-hosted Peertube or Youtube.

        • Danileonis OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For the usual two pennies related to traffic? You make money on related third-party platforms, it’s pointless to focus on this as much as it’s useful to support a truly open platform.

          • Blaze (he/him)@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nebula is subscribed based, 5$ per viewer.

            The money is split among creators based on the view time of the viewer.

            It’s going to be hard to go against that platform, that is favorable to them

            • Danileonis OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not against that service in particular, pluralism is good. I just think Fediverse / PeerTube belong to another level of civilization.

              • JGrffn
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Right, but we all live under capitalism and have bills to pay. It’s true that youtubers quite generally rely on sponsored ads to make probably most of their profit, but YouTube ad revenue still is a decent chunk of it. And that’s not even getting into hosting an instance.

                The only real way peertube works is if it implements some sort of subscription system (I think instance-wide subscriptions following the nebula pattern would be ideal). It’s easier for text-based platforms to stay afloat with random small donations from less than 1% of users since the storage requirements aren’t as egregious, but we do need to remember that even YouTube operated at a loss last I heard. It was only kept afloat by Google. Hell, even image hosting sites get the short end of the stick sometimes (still mourning gfycat), I can’t imagine a free video hosting platform staying afloat at all, let alone pull serious content creators to it.

                I’m not too confident in peertube ever going big, if I’m honest. I’m not confident in monolithic gif/image sites either, but that’s a lot easier to self-host than a giant library of random videos that could far outgrow your system if you aren’t careful. You wouldn’t expect a federated free Netflix to work, would you? And yet that’s a fraction of the amount of content a successful PeerTube instance could end up with if it goes anywhere near as viral as a lemmy instance. Hell, even if channels ended up hosting an instance each and not letting anyone else upload to their instance, there’s some channels/companies that put out multiple videos a day every single day. No way to keep that afloat long term without a strong revenue system. Like it or not, money is always going to be an issue, especially for peertube.