F4stL4ne

When you have no ethics and just care about results you can also go fishing with dynamite...

That being said I didn't know dotnet was now open source. So that's a good point.

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.

Jami https://jami.net/ Messenger app from the free software fondation.

I'm working on a multiplayer text-based rpg framework for web, PC, mac ans Android. It's made will Godot Engine ans it ils a créé software.

Here is mine: https://videos.alolise.org/videos/watch/13dc2dc5-3661-4912-9913-5114c8cf5f8e