Oh so you’re deflecting, OK.

So if the fuel price get very high in the future, you won’t care ? Or if you don’t own a car, if in the future a law pass making you a second class citizen if you don’t own a car ? Won’t you then still don’t care about cars ?

If you don’t care about google, which produce tools used on daily basis by thousands of people. I’m really curious about what do you care about?

Because I do understand having no time or energy to actively be against something. But is it possible to live, not caring about anything that’s this big, this always present in our lives ? That’s really like saying I don’t care about cars, I don’t care about drugs, I don’t care about libraries, I don’t care about TV, etc…

Because they are an advertising company.

With all that been said here, they also killed xmpp with hangout, so they’re not friendly to Foss at all.

deleted by creator

DaVinci is better, but it also provides licence for life. So it’s proprietary but have a good relationship with the customers.

‘Generally’ is a really wide word. Better for what? For who? When? That’s the all question…

deleted by creator

This is all my childhood!

Sanitarium.

Mandrake in 2003, I was young and didn’t know what I was doing…

Unless everyone have an instance near home :) which is the case for me on Peertube, didn’t checked for Lemmy though. I should check when I can. But for this to happen we need instances. Small, large, run by people, associations, communities, whatever.

Yes encoding is still a thing, but less analysis, online editing bullshit and advertising. So yeah Peeture is lighter than YouTube ;)

I agree that strict efficiency could be hard to tell on video diffusion only.

Google loves making new hardware/tech, but yeah they’re not the only one to blame on this…

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

Yes, but it doesn’t mean low tech hardware should always be replace by new ones.

I honestly doesn’t understand why everybody here seems to think efficiency=ecology. Mass manufacturing new hardware have a big ecological impact. As I said before things aren’t magically replaced by better ones. Old unused tech ends up burning in pile in Africa or Asia.

What’s the point of using things like YouTube that keeps promoting 4k (needs for better screen), instant access, streaming over download, advertising, things that have a judge ecological impact.

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

I agree with you, but YouTube is also a big part of the incentive of building more and more new hardware. Plus as I said before YouTube isn’t just for hosting videos but also metrics tools, content id, advertising, editing tools and such… All this needs also power to run.

Did you have any data regarding packet distribution on google services? Last time I checked (about 4/5 years ago) an email send from a gmail to a gmail traveled about 1,5 of the earth size. Which is a lot for 2 laptops side by side in the same room.

Lastly you’re trying to make this a debate only on the tech aspect but it is not. They are ethical points at stake and they are equally important I think.

There are tubes nonetheless, under the Atlantic ocean for instance… But I agree.

The major economic impact of the digital is making new teminal. The second is the streaming. I can find the scientific research about that if you like.

With this in mind, you are telling me that a streaming software running with potential low tech hardware and using p2p (allowing for packet to NOT travel 3 times around the world before reaching destination) will not be better for the environment than a centralised video system running 4k formats and advertising everywhere?

Again, maybe I’m missing something here. And yes hardware running uses power, yes datacenter are more power efficient (I already talked about that in the thread).

Less efficient? How?

And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say less work was done.

I don’t see how billions of users connected on the same pipe can be more efficient than being connected each to a different point of a network.

I think YouTube is mostly a network of datacenter of his own right now, but that doesn’t change anything since we can not see it.

On the energy usage, maybe, but this usage will be better spread across the earth than being concentrated on a few points.

I’m pretty sure the average successful YouTube content creators can invest in one computer to host his own content on peertube. For start that’s all what is needed.

Video storage is a false problem, creators already store their content locally (to not lose the work if there is any issue).

On the technical side, others have answer that question here but in short:

• decentralised with peer to peer means that the more a video is shared the more it will be available, even with small size pipes (when I’m watching your content, others can watch it through me),
• you don’t have to pay for hudge and hardware so less money wasted, but it needs a strong network of pipes, which can improve internet navigation as a all,
• instances are nodes of a network, if one fails the others stays up,
• better scalability cause p2p,
• peertube can run on rather old tech so I’d say it’s more efficient.

I will need more precise questions for better answers.

YouTube has a bunch of issues:

1/ climate change:

• A big centralised server needs lots of power, of cooling, a big pipe for upload/download,
• algorithms, metrics, content id, big size imagery (4k), all this is really needing a bunch of energy in itself to run,
• advertising in general is an ecological nightmare.

2/ monetisation:

• content id is a gamble for creators. A video can be demonetised for the dumbest reasons under the pretext of copyright infringement,
• no one knows how the algorithm works, it means one video can be suggested to a lot of people and the next one won’t. So income is randomised,
• the purpose of monetisation for content creators exist to legitimate the advertising and the monetisation of user’s personal data’s. Not the other way around. YouTube is not a platform made to retribute creators.

Going on Peertube could mostly fix every ecological problems for the lost of the uncertainty of the monetisation system.

Plus there is a psychological weigh on creators that goes with the monetisation and algorithm of YouTube.

Or the lack of content id could lead to people using more libre and open arts to make content. Therefore making the very need of content id irrelevant.