• thantik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Meh. I’ve seen this guys channel. He got removed for a ban evasion on his second channel which was encouraging people to 3D print firearms. Second channel got banned for this, and so he started clearing out the first channel in an effort to keep the first channel from getting banned; he knew it was coming.

    Now he’s posting on some YouTube clone that Newsmaxx is prominently featured on. Louis Rossmann wasn’t given the full story here, as I’m sure he would have a different tune if he knew all that was going on.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is exactly why we as a community need to work hard to build federated platforms, that are censorship resistant. YouTube as the public square is extremely censored, and arbitrary, today it’s not so bad, but tomorrow who knows

    • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mass video hosting is just so incredibly expensive, especially something in the scale of the types of CDNs services like YouTube use

      • rezz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I am working on a solution built off of Lemmy that I hope combats the primary issue of cost/delivery for server managers in a partially automated fashion.

          • rezz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yes - you cannot allow (a) free users (b) who can upload content randomly, lest you have the above problems.

            You 100% cannot mimic YouTube outright in the fediverse. But you can definitely make federated video 100x better if this isn’t the objective.

            • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              you cannot allow (a) free users (b) who can upload content

              Remind us again how you are building something like Lemmy, which allows free users to upload content?

              • rezz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                built off of Lemmy

                Not “like” Lemmy, FWIW. Lemmy already allows for permissioned users and those servers can still be federated with something like Lemmy World.

                If you wanted to do it quick and dirty, you could have a permissioned Lemmy (like other closed Lemmy servers) whereby the permission was say, pay-as-you-go with a Stripe portal. I pay $50 for a year to be a user.

                On the other side, this user does not have permission to post content/links (this is also a feature of Lemmy today, whereby a community owner can allow only mods to post content).

                Creator-permissioned accounts (ones that can start communities and post) are white-listed effectively by the server operators.

                It is with these users that the $50 is shared after server costs are considered.

                These users can do the default which is content is posted and closed on the instance. But an “open” community could effectively be the place for free content, and those “freemium” links would be shareable with federated servers more easily.

                The real trick is: can you implement it such that I could pay for this server as a user of Lemmy World and not have to create a new account. That’s the hardest part of federated, subscription Lemmy-as-YouTube.