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

    I wonder about this. Youtube is made so that videos has to be long (10 minutes at least, or you won’t get exposure, right?) so we get all those dragged out videos with long summaries.

    Also you are supposed to earn money with it, which combined makes videos, IMO, often not very interesting.

    Sure, I get it, everyone can’t make videos all day long for free, but isn’t that something that we shouldn’t maybe want?

    I prefer a genuine hobbyist making one video a year, than a sponsored person pushing one a day.

    Which brings me to hosting and bandwidth needs, youtube needs a lot of that because of its business model, but say Lemmy communities could probably host quality videos without large hassle (especially if small servers wasn’t defederated all the time).

    Thoughts?

    • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The problem is the term quality would be used to block out certain creators. The definition would wind up being vague and/or arbitrary.

      What one person thinks is quality may not be quality to someone else. In a way that’s a niceness of YouTube. We can each upload what we think is good… or bad.

      Even then if a video goes big viral (which is arguably something a creator may want), the bandwidth costs could skyrocket.

      Then it’s like: maybe we need CDNs and more storage and boom now it’s even more expensive. I just don’t see fediverse video working great long term without big money to back it.