Youtube is already in the red

I doubt unless someone just said fuck it I’ll give you 5 billion dollars just for servers they’re be able to even start being meaningful competition

The whole concept relies on users downloading and constantly seeding every video they watch, or else the video disappears

does torrenting tech require servers?

seeding seems like a lot of the buffering comes from users

i dont understand the tech i admit

thats just because theyre not a multibillion dollar website

@What Would Jack Conte Do? No, all the users act as distributed server

So no users watching, or no one seeding (sharing) it, means no more video

if pewdie crashed bitchute it would be great publicity, and bitchute would improve over time provided they had advertisers and could find a way to make an actual profit unlike youtube ever has

you cant really blame bitchute for having a torrentbased infrastructure but hopefully they are looking at other options should they gain mainstream appeal, without which, they couldnt afford to do it any differently in the first place

but its true that pushing a profit out of a web video platform is a huge issue

There's solutions for IPFS based systems possibly

they could reduce bandwidth somewhat by using a download-only system while retaining a clientbased player that would play your files locally

that way you dont have people streaming the same video 6 times

that introduces space issues for the user of course, unfortunately

another idea is to make users pay a small subscription fee if they use more than a certain amount of bandwidth per month or else get throttled

we're at the point where we should probly be paying for our infinite free video platfrom

i mean youtube's entire profit problem is caused because their services are free

back in the day users just wouldnt use services if they had to pay for them

but now we have shit like Patreon, netflix, hulu etc.

pandora, spotify. . .

Web 4.0 could solve this by having companies compete for customers by offering hosting space for social media

the other idea is to simply make the creators pay a small fee to upload, and/or a scaling fee based on their subcount

which i think is fine, i'd pay $2 to upload a video

That still leaves a problem of the company needing to host everything

they can host everything as long as they have money coming in

I like my idea better

lol

charging creators would lead to higher quality content overall and less bandwidth use

youtube is storing years worth of crappy videos nobody will watch

well, idk what IPFS is

Distributed/decentralized servers

It's like a RAID cluster, but over many computers across the internet

you could simply make the creator use their own server

>simply

There's nothing simple about that on the front end

sure

thats why you have programmers

Look, you've got a guy that wants to just make videos. He doesn't have time to host things, or have a server that's constantly online, or set up an Amazon web server.

he can just rent a server