It seems very doable, but bit steep in investment cost (hardware). I think it should be doable with a running cost of ca 100-150,- per month for hosting and hardware. Assuming sponsored/donated admin-time.
@SebastianS That sounds like a fantastic prospect. Although as with all tools, it can be a challenge to get colleagues to use it because "everyone uses YouTube". But once it starts to take off, it could be great.
@mmin Yeah, hence asking for feedback. Would be important to get some original content on there, but also to see if there is enough interest for commercial support.
@SebastianS It's not for me but it seems like a really cool and interesting idea, go for it!
@SebastianS That's really expensive, how large do you want to make the instance? For comparison, I run the second largest Peertube instance (peertube.social), and it costs like 13 € per month for the hosting.
@nutomic 12Tb of storage, not virtualised. The cost include hardware write-off over 3 years.
What do you get for the 13,- per month?
@nutomic Right, yeah. VPS is easier scale-wise.
I've had issues with VPS providers and promised resources and apparent performance.
Then there are the problems with security containment and vm's. And risks when hosting potential political content and authorities.
And then there is an argument for self-controlled infrastructure.
I see some problems with cloud based or VPS based hosting. Hence my choice for hardware.
Got any tips for non-cloud-based hosting for peertube?
@SebastianS Yeah I can understand these arguments, but still it seems like a waste of money when you're just starting out with a couple of users. A dedicated server won't help you much with political content or censorship, because you still need a hosting provider or internet connection, and a domain.
No tips, but there shouldn't be any differences between vps or dedicated hosting really.
@nutomic Yeah, my previous request for information on what is needed didn't get much useful feedback. So aimed for storage, performance and low-power usage.
A dedicated server will however, you will have more control over it, you can find providers with a backbone. And you can know when they're getting your user-data. With a VPS, there is no way of knowing who gets access to the machine. And cheap cloud hosters, rarely care about your rights.
Do you have any numbers on the usage of your instance? like how many users, videos, downloads, traffic, load/cpu-usage, memory usage.
As far as money wasting, it's a difficult one. In the end youtube is the 'cheapest', but comes with a 'price', hosting your own is a large improvement, but increases monetary cost. I would say the same for cloud-hosting. Factor 10 is a lot though, but with hardware it's hard to scale.
@SebastianS That really depends on the hosting company, I think with Hetzner there's not much difference between dedicated or vps servers, because it's all in their own, european data centers.
You want a fast cpu for transcoding, but the meaning of "fast" really depends on your requirements. Like I said I'm using a 2 cpu vps, and that works fine for now, but large videos might take an hour to finish transcoding, and the server will overload fast if multiple people upload videos at the same time. Videos take up about 600 gb, you really want to put this on hdd or some other cheap storage, and use an ssd for caching. RAM usage is around 1 gb now (excluding disk cache), so nothing to worry about. The main problem is bandwidth, I think I'm using around 5 tb per month or so. Of course webtorrent helps with this a bit.
Some info like user numbers is here: https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances
@nutomic I've seen the url thanks. That description sounds like I would want hardware if I want it to scale.
@SebastianS In the end it's your decision, and if you care more about having your own hardware than about saving money, you should probably go for it.
@nutomic sure, don't think it feels right to me to 'just' go for the cheapest option. That criteria often clashes with sustainable/community-controlled infrastructure in my eyes.
@SebastianS What is your plan for moderation and abuse management? Do you have anyone on your team with experience in this area, or who comes from a marginalised identity? What will your policies be on say, content that is sympathetic to Nazi philosophy/white nationalism/vaccine denialism/etc.?
@SebastianS As far as I have been able to pick up, they are actively hostile to the idea
Even basic things like blocking other users has not been implemented, due to resistance on the part of the developers
So if you are going to do this, 100% of the abuse mitigation will be on your shoulders
@bgcarlisle hmm, I've seen peertube instances do moderation.. That is remove videos not in line with their policies.
@SebastianS For example:
They have a *very* privileged perspective and this may make reasonable safety for people with marginalised identities difficult or impossible
So if you want to be a responsible admin, it may be a LOT of work
@bgcarlisle Interesting example. I'm all for the feature. But if that thread is exemplary for how community interaction works...
It -looks- like a few people egging on a couple of devs, that said. I only read the 'moderated' thread.
@SebastianS I'm just saying, I don't think I would feel like I was being responsible to my users if I couldn't even point them to a "block" button
And the developers are unwilling to even consider why that might be necessary
@bgcarlisle is that feature request somewhere?
If you know any, I wouldn't mind an overview of what moderation tools there are, are not there and won't be there.
@SebastianS This is kind of the problem that I was trying to point out
The link *is* the feature request for users to be able to block people from following them, and it has been shot down by the developers
The developers are very hostile to tools designed with abuse reduction in mind :(
I read most of that link, I don't see that feature request in there.
I'm sorry, but from that link I also can't see that much hostility from the developer-side. Are you sure sent the right link?
@SebastianS The feature request is:
> Currently PeerTube auto-accepts all follow requests, this is a feature request to allow disabling of the auto-acceptance and allow an admin to manually accept specific follow requests (and ignore, or reject others)
@bgcarlisle yeah, that's what I read.
The posts from the devs I read where open to for discussion, but asking for clarity.
I was thinking the block-feature would be about users preventing others from following them. This is as far as I understand about admins blocking follow-requests?
@bgcarlisle what's your view on moderating internal and external content on peertube?
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!