611
TikTok set to be banned in the US after losing appeal
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
611 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60108 readers
1820 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Until a flood of TikTok users bankrupt them, anyways.
Not entirely sure how you'd make the economics of hosting endless video files work without great big piles of money and some way to get even more big piles of money on a routine basis :/
Yeah, video hosting is notoriously expensive. It's why there's still not a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else but Google could afford to run the platform at a net loss for the amount of time required to build a profitable user base.
If even a tiny percentage of TikTok's US user base decided to move to Loops, that may be enough traffic to not only completely disable Loops, but would probably impact the rest of the Fediverse at large, too.
The millions of free porn sites would beg to differ...
Free? They are ad-ridden and unlike YouTube, porn videos are removed from the site all the time.
Yet none of them really paywall you for using an adblocker.
Actually come to think of it, porn sites are the only place I allow ads (obv blocking the pop ups and other dark pattern fuckery)... probablys because I learned to ignore them entirely as a teen before ad blockers existed.
Interaction with the fediverse is very limited atm
Edit: and by that I mean non-existent. It's still very early in development.
Short videos do not need to be long lived (they could be deleted after 3 days) And some peer to peer could work really good for "viral" videos.
Companies or creators can run their own instance can't they?
AFAIK, it's still not had the code released, so at the moment there's just the one site and you can't host your own.
They can. And if at any point it becomes untenable, you can just archive whatever you host, shut down your instance, and put the videos up for download somewhere.
If a company is going bankrupt as a result of hosting a video service, they're not going to be able to afford to archive and make it available for download either.
Archive storage is relatively cheap. It’s the bandwidth and compute required to serve video that is expensive
Could you explain that idea in more detail? I'm not really sure I understand how that would work in practice.
Gotcha.
The idea of a large public instance rubs me the wrong way, since it leads to behavior like that.
You're absolutely right, which is why BitTorrent never managed to take off. Totally unviable, doesn't work at all, and definitely isn't the technology underpinning federated video services like PeerTube.
Edit: WTF? Why are you people denying the reality in front of your face? BitTorrent works and distributing video peer-to-peer is a solved problem. I do not understand this defeatist religious insistence that Video Must Cost Money.
At one point BitTorrent/P2P was responsible for something like 30-40% of all global internet traffic.
The thing is the protocol never really developed beyond some useful, but minor evolutionary updates.
You say "never really developed beyond" as if that isn't a synonym for "finished and working fine."