Anyone on Zig Forums ever done research for finding an alternative to Youtube for hosting videos with less or no censorship? I do, but I'm looking for another platform that doesn't shut you down you for posting shit they don't like to be known by the public or what they deem (((problematic))).
I was about to do the research myself but wondered if anyone did this before me or has some infographs on it.
I'm not a creator. I believe a lot of them are switching to something called bitchute, but I've never been there and don't need it.
As a consumer just use hooktube.
Download with youtube-dl and push onto a torrent network. All the tools needed exist. Just need a system to index the DHT for youtube style content.
Can you list the tools that will make this happen.
bitchute, hooktube, I think gab.ai might have some hosting ability, also minds, I believe
HT is only a proxy
You buy or rent your own server and host videos on it. There's nothing hard about it, nogger. Fucking duckduckgoy it. Oh, you want to post your nazi child porn without being drezzled from servers by evil (((FBI))) ad (((Copyright holders))), right? Well, host a Tor hidden service then.
Do you understand what is an interface frontend? It is not necessary to have a pretty frontend like this. If the frontend goes away, the backend ipfs network doesn't go away, all you need is to find another frontend to point to the same backend.
Bitchute censors content.
No you don't understand. Torrents and shit have existed for years. What this is doing is adding a centralized frontend with all these extra features that they control while you pay for the bandwidth instead of them. There is no "pointing it at the same backend". When they go down they take the entire youtube style parts with them. The ranking, indexing, commenting, etc. They can censor as they wish until then. Without the frontend its just a torrent network.
If the Bitchute front end with all their comments and rankings go away, nothing of value was lost! The front end is a trivial addition to the real star which is the video stored on the network. The network is the important bit, not the additions of user accounts for commenting and tracking.
If this was true then torrents would have replaced youtube long ago.
The meta system is literally the problem holding all this shit back. The tech for file distribution has been around for 25 years.
Except that is the important part for a youtube replacement
People originally used Youtube because they were incapable of hosting videos with their own resources. IPFS is the technology that allows people to upload their videos to the Internet. People are free to start their own websites and communities as a front end to the videos they send to the network. Bitchute is one of these front ends and nobody is centralized to stay there. If they want to start their own commenting and rating system, they are very welcome to build another Bitchute for their own purposes.
This is just not true at all. You know what existed before youtube? Torrents. Just check wikipedia. Before youtube 1/3rd of the internet was people p2p pirating videos. People had the means, before, and as sites like youtube came along they stopped.
You still need to host the videos even with plain bittorrent technology. If you're going to seed your highly obscure video, then in practise you will need to personally seed it into perpetuity because the number of people who would seed it after downloading is so small they might as well not exist. Youtube was designed for normal people who don't care about hosting videos out of their own resources.
IPFS operates exactly the same way.
When you share something on IPFS you have to stay up for people to download it all the same. Its exactly the same issue as torrents. They don't automatically download something just because it was shared.
The difference with IPFS is that IPFS is supposed to work as a kind of "permanent seeding system" so people who download through IPFS are supposed to be simultaneously seeding it without the active interaction of the downloader i.e. if there is one person online hosting the file, then it will just continue along the network. In a normal bittorrent file, the user has to actively and intentionally seed the specific file(s).
Which is what every torrent client does by default. Have you literally never used a torrent client before? The change with IPFS is the file system part.
Which is what torrents do
Torrent clients always seed by default, most don't even have a way to disable it. Having a torrent program in the background is the same as having IPFS in the background. Users can also get IPFS to stop sharing files all the same.
Yes I did last year. Out of a lot of different options I found that Vimeo generally transcodes to better quality than Youtube and doesn't have as many asinine restrictions on resolution. I would sure like to test out Bitchute more, but I can't figure out how download my own videos because this webtorrent shit is such a pain in the ass to setup an out of browser downloader.
Can someone PLEASE make a userscript that automatically converts YouTube embeds to hooktube ones?
All youtube-dl needs for argument is the video ID (the part towards the end, after the - and before the .), and it'll figure out the URL itself.
By - and . I mean the ones that show up in downloaded file, like here: Diving Into TempleOS-bfGMBG085Ms.mp4 Just watch out because sometimes a - is used in the ID itself, but it's pretty easy to just copy/paste that part into your shell once you know what to look for.
This. We need a central decentralized easily accessible chat for something like video hashes. This sounds complicated but doable.
Some form of streamtorrenting with VLC also help since permasaving of videos on first view is neither popular nor efficient (for the viewers)
Google needs to stop working with the glow-in-the-dark CIA niggers
Should just have each content creator make a "channel" where they manage it. Anything else would lead to sybil attacks and spam.
oh yeah there aren't 5000 other networks like IPFS that have existed for 30 years
How many of those networks have a HTTP interface allowing the user to see videos directly within a web page?
You can torrent in your browser even without a daemon and watch the video in it too webtorrent.io/
Not participating in your arguing over which P2P network is the best, but..
Why would you want to start up your browser to watch a video? That's insane.
Youtube has a multi billion dollar business around doing this exact thing! I wonder what it is about Youtube that people like about it. 🤔🤔🤔
Certainly, this technology exists today. It didn't exist in 2005 when Youtube was born.
Yes, in the red.
Youtube's original purpose was "hey free hosting" these days free hosting is easy to find any where you want. The issue is finding people to watch your shit.
No point making videos on a website no one knows exists is there?
Neither of these are real alternatives. If you want to just a place to upload videos to then use fucking Internet Archive or something. Normalfags don't want to just host videos. They want a system that will automatically convert their 4K video to 1440p, 1080p, 720p, 480p, 360p, 240p, and 144p in a matter of hours, while paying them money for producing whatever they produce.
No but it existed outside of the browser just fine
HTTP interfaces existed for torrents in 2005, just not full browser only implementations.
Webtorrent is only a leaching technology. Webtorrent client(browsers) just circlejerk instead of strengthening the bittorrent seeding pool. Browsers have to die anyways.
People find obscure websites all the time. Especially with the Google botnet running around, there is very little that they won't find. Even assuming that Google is blind to your specific obscure website, there's always the option of forming web rings with similarly themed websites.
Can I get a description of this link? Does youtube-dl suddenly support webtorrent now?
Bitchute and uploadstars are the best alternatives.
I just use Open With on Firefox-based browsers Pale Moon so I can stream video links with mpv. It's the same as hooktube, except I can still see a thumbnail or video title before clicking on a video when it's a plain youtube embed.
I usually use 'url' for youtube-dl because I know the url doesn't need to be interpreted by bash. Same with megadl because of '#'. Do people really not know how to use "" or '' for bash arguments?
Speaking of, has Youtube ever turned a profit?
YouTube (In the) Red
I think the latter is best for backup purposes. Watch the existing community there potentially go down in flames as politically sensitive content will appear en masse there.