I think this decentralization and federation is what web3 is all about, without all the corporations calling everything to do with monkey pixel art that costs a million dollars “web3”
I think this decentralization and federation is what web3 is all about, without all the corporations calling everything to do with monkey pixel art that costs a million dollars “web3”
@kiriakos @fubo One thing I think a platform like #Peertube needs to solve, which #LBRY does (because it uses a blockchain) is the financial incentive for content creators without ads because right now you can’t really make money on Peertube. On LBRY you can because it features its own currency and on #Youtube of course but this is using ads. This is one of the advantages to using a blockchain. However LBRY’s torrent like protocol for sharing video data is very slow and buggy which incentives the centralisation around odysee. The idea behind the project is great but not that well in practice if they don’t make the protocol faster.
Plenty of creators have solved that already through platforms like patreon. It turns out that ad-supported content only works if advertisers want to advertise on your content, and large segments of media aren’t “advertiser friendly”.
No crypto required.
“Crypto” has meant “encryption” since the early days of PGP.
If you mean “cryptocurrency” or “blockchain”, please consider using those specific words.
Kinda being pedantic. It’s a comment on a post about web3, responding to someone talking about a blockchain currency. Frankly, unless it’s unclear enough that someone might come along and ask “what does cryptography have to do with blockchain?”, I’m not sure why you feel the need to correct my usage of the word.
@lucien
Really? Just heard someone who complained about it but maybe you’re right.
It’s not clear to me that media distribution and payment need to follow the same channels.
For instance, classic TV uses completely separate pathways for distributing media to users (via broadcast radio signals) and collecting revenues. Commercial TV stations run advertisements; US-style public TV stations attract contributors and sponsors; UK BBC-style public TV stations have government funding.
(And the BBC produces good material — not only BBC World Service, but also Doctor Who.)
Platforms such as YouTube collapse all of this into a single service for convenience. And then “YouTubers” get the mistaken impression that they’re entitled to it, and fuss when they are “demonetized”.
(“Demonetization” just means “the platform doesn’t think its advertisers want to be associated with you; and the advertisers are paying to have the platform make that decision.”)
@fubo yeah that’s true but why not improve things. making it more convenient is better IMO and we have the technologies to do it.
If someone is providing convenience as a service, they get to collect a share of revenue from it, and they get to decide whether you get to use their service at all — an opportunity for censorship.
If I were in the video business (which I’m not; so I am ignorant!) I would look to distribute video via a service similar to a streaming/dynamic version of BitTorrent; and find a way to automate placement of video ads into the stream. Major tech companies shouldn’t need to be involved at all; nothing about this should need large server or network capacity — for the same reason that torrent servers don’t.
@fubo thats where i think crypto is great such as how LBRY does it. you can earn money and no one has the power to demonetize you.
If it becomes popular, what prevents the goat porn people from spamming it and making good content undiscoverable?
@fubo
Same as Fediverse. Instances can choose to hide certain content.