So Elon gutted Twitter, and people jumped ship to Mastodon. Now spez did… you know… and we’re on Lemmy and Kbin. Can we have a YouTube to PeerTube exodus next? With the whole ad-pocalypse over there, seems like Google is itching for it.

  • F4stL4ne@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There are tubes nonetheless, under the Atlantic ocean for instance… But I agree.

    The major economic impact of the digital is making new teminal. The second is the streaming. I can find the scientific research about that if you like.

    With this in mind, you are telling me that a streaming software running with potential low tech hardware and using p2p (allowing for packet to NOT travel 3 times around the world before reaching destination) will not be better for the environment than a centralised video system running 4k formats and advertising everywhere?

    Again, maybe I’m missing something here. And yes hardware running uses power, yes datacenter are more power efficient (I already talked about that in the thread).

    • ExFed@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’ve got some scientific papers handy, I’d love to see them!

      The point I’m trying to make is that YouTube has an incentive to design their system to not let traffic travel further than it has to (users closer to a data center hosting the content they want will get it faster). They build data centers close to where their users live. Even then, delivery is likely less energy-intensive than video transcoding, meaning large, specialized data centers make a lot of sense for that task. They then distribute transcoded content to smaller, regional servers to improve user experience … again, specialized systems for a specialized task.

      This means that YouTube has already distributed their system across many different servers in many different regions around the world, so in many ways, they already take advantage of the efficiency benefits of p2p, but they can carefully coordinate to reduce overall costs in a way that p2p can’t (yet).

      But the Fediverse will lag in efficiency for exactly the reason you pointed out: it’s running on low tech, general-purpose hardware. Energy usage has the largest environmental impact by far. Hardware that is specialized (like Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) or newer will always outperform general or old hardware.

      • F4stL4ne@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

        I agree with you, but YouTube is also a big part of the incentive of building more and more new hardware. Plus as I said before YouTube isn’t just for hosting videos but also metrics tools, content id, advertising, editing tools and such… All this needs also power to run.

        Did you have any data regarding packet distribution on google services? Last time I checked (about 4/5 years ago) an email send from a gmail to a gmail traveled about 1,5 of the earth size. Which is a lot for 2 laptops side by side in the same room.

        Lastly you’re trying to make this a debate only on the tech aspect but it is not. They are ethical points at stake and they are equally important I think.

        • ExFed@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting article (my French is not good, but with the help of translation I get the idea). Thank you for sharing.

          Ahh so, I think there is room for confusion. Fediverse is “p2p” only in the context of the (federated) servers. PeerTube/Lemmy/Mastodon/etc. are still “centralized” in that your instance (e.g. programming.dev) is shared with many other users (possibly worldwide). This potentially increases the cost of delivery, because a user still has to find a server, and may select one that is ideologically, rather than physically, close to them. Because YouTube’s servers are ideologically homogeneous, there is no reason to find a server other than the one physically closest to you, and thus the cheapest to stream from. So delivery costs to the end user’s terminal should be even higher for PeerTube as compared to YouTube!

          A completely flat, p2p architecture potentially eliminates almost all of the cost of delivery, but it does introduce other costs, and doesn’t eliminate the need for video encoding. I don’t have any research available, but I feel confident it will not be simple to compare with centralized services like Fediverse or traditional web services. I will keep my eye out for research.

          There are many reasons to switch to Fediverse. I’m simply arguing that “efficiency” is not one of them :)

          • F4stL4ne@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unless everyone have an instance near home :) which is the case for me on Peertube, didn’t checked for Lemmy though. I should check when I can. But for this to happen we need instances. Small, large, run by people, associations, communities, whatever.

            Yes encoding is still a thing, but less analysis, online editing bullshit and advertising. So yeah Peeture is lighter than YouTube ;)

            I agree that strict efficiency could be hard to tell on video diffusion only.

    • Sentau@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      potential low tech hardware

      Low tech ≠ efficient

      I have an old laptop that is low tech and uses only 15 watts of power. Compared to that my laptop has a general power usage of 35 watts or more on heavy CPU intensive tasks. On face value it seems that the old machine is more power efficient but that is not the case. The amount computing power provided for that 15 watts used is very low and like 15 times lower than the computational grunt provided by the new machine which makes the new machine 5-6 times more efficient.

      Edit - it would great if you can link the scientific papers you mentioned. I am by no means an expert and love to be proven wrong and learn something in the process

      • F4stL4ne@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

        Yes, but it doesn’t mean low tech hardware should always be replace by new ones.

        I honestly doesn’t understand why everybody here seems to think efficiency=ecology. Mass manufacturing new hardware have a big ecological impact. As I said before things aren’t magically replaced by better ones. Old unused tech ends up burning in pile in Africa or Asia.

        What’s the point of using things like YouTube that keeps promoting 4k (needs for better screen), instant access, streaming over download, advertising, things that have a judge ecological impact.

        • ExFed@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is a very fair point. There are ecological costs to electronics manufacturing and waste that are not as well understood as lifecycle energy consumption. It is much more complex and appears much harder to solve than energy consumption … so maybe that’s why.

        • Sentau@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I understand your points about the ecological impacts of creating and buying new technological devices. But youtube is not the sole driver in making people new devices. People buying new stuff is the goal of the entire tech industry. I dont see how switching to peertube or other FOSS alternatives will lead to an reduction in ecological impact. Hardware companies will still be making new phones, laptops, etc and people will still be buying these new devices.

          Dont get me wrong, i would love for FOSS alternatives to youtube becoming mainstream but the ecological impact argument does not seem to hold at least not in my eyes.

          The paper was an interesting read though. Thank you. I will try to hold on to devices for longer from now on (hopefully as long as possible)