Video is literally the data elephant in the room. I think we'll need AI to assist in developing something that demanding in terms of bandwidth. Remember, Youtube just works. No one is going to move to a platform where a video takes 30-60 seconds to load a video and a half an hour to upload a video when a practically instant option exists.

And I may be in the minority here, but so far, Google has been the least nefarious tech giant to my eyes. They haven't given me adequate reason to disavow them. I'm not saying they're good, I'm just saying they're not Musk Twitter, Zuck Meta, or the like. They don't obfuscate the fact that they sell your data like Meta, and they even understand the value of open source software, rare for a publically traded capitalist corporation. This will probably change, greed rot is universal, and they do treat their creators like dogshit on YouTube. But I'd be shocked if it was reasonably replacable by distributed enthusiasts given current infrastructure and bandwidth pricing. Estimates have Youtube's video data to be around 300 Petabytes, or 300,000 terabytes.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

300 Petabytes is nothing. The Filecoin network alone has 20 EiB available. There must be more data than that on Youtube

Edit: Maybe there isn't, but that would render the problem very easy

[–] nave@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As far as I can tell Filecoin works by having clients pay to store files on people’s servers so there’s still a question of who is going to pay for it.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago

Users could have to pay 0.005$ for each 20min video each year. I don't think that's a problem

load more comments (9 replies)