I want these things to implement peer to peer caching, so that when 10 people are watching the same video, only one downloads from youtubes own servers.
Then it's just a matter of letting people add their own videos directly to the service and it can become fully independent of YouTube.
Peer to peer died because (1) a lot of the world, especially outside the US, has terrible upload/bandwidth, (2) HTTPS CDNs got _really_ cheap, far cheaper that p2p technologies like BitTorrent+WebSeed.
There are a minority of users who care about being able to host videos that violate YouTube/TikTok/Instagram policies. Unfortunately, a significant part of that minority is working with infringing or illegal content, which both prevents ad networks from working with you and attracts attention from law enforcement.
Minor correction on (1): upload isn't worse "outside the US" as a rule. A lot of Western Europe (Portugal, Spain, France, the Nordics) has widespread FTTH with symmetric or near-symmetric plans, often better uplink than typical US cable. The weak-upload argument holds more for mobile-first regions and for DSL/cable-heavy markets. But I agree the conclusion probably stands either way: most viewing is on phones behind CGNAT, and that kills P2P regardless of how good home fibre is.
The CGNAT problem is solvable in the majority of cases via multiple solutions (tailcat/DERP, for example), but that certainly doesn't make a mobile connection's upload any better for sure.
Meh - you can block ports inbound without state tables. I think you're ascribing purpose to what i imagine is a sclerotic and dysfunctional entity.
When i was 20, i was reflexively cynical, because it let me pose as intellectual without the burden of having to learn or think. As an adult, i find that pose very fucking obvious.
My interest was piqued by the concept of natting ip6, and why an isp might do so, and why cgnat might be disabled if you ask the isp to disable ip6.
...bb-but I thought cynicism was the same thing as experience![1]
No but seriously, I agree it is primarily "we can't be arsed to change our methods".
"Primarily" is not everything; the other 10-20% is the long tail of everything else. Europe is getting much harder on filesharing[3][4] because of business interests, and - despite the much better regulation - there's probably some "you shouldn't be hosting things on a residential connection anyways, pay us for a business connection peasants" like in the US[2].
Of course, all these ready-made restrictions are then easily adaptable for abuse (when's the next Chat Control proposal anyways?), so there's not much pushback from above...
Cynicism is easily a thought-terminating cliche, but it is unfortunately earned nowadays, especially as a coping mechanism for a feeling of helplessness against the usually stupid, sometimes malicious forces at play (Hanlon's Razor doesn't account for weaponization of stupidity).
Sure, but cgnat doesn't defeat filesharing, because of your STUN and your DERP and what-have-you.
It's common, at least in the UK, for residential lines to block smtp inbound. That's an ACL, which is operationally ~free. NAT does not serve the purposes you've outlined.
Some cynicism is warranted about, e.g. chat control, but it's better explained by good-faith desire to fight egregious crime coupled with low care for the privacy invasion. Other people have different values to you and me.
It's hard to reconcile an EU government in anyone's pocket with gdpr and dma, which afaics serve citizens and no big interests. Like most governments, the EU is somewhat fractious and incoherent, so it's not a given that everything they do is citizen-friendly. But i, for one, accept that law enforcement should exist; accept that this is inevitably a trade-off against citizen rights; concede that preventing the next bataclan is nigh-on impossible; and understand why some might, to that end, desire greater power to comb through conversations. I don't agree, but i also don't need to assume conspiracy. At heart, the problem is not that all government is evil - although you're welcome to that view - it's that thick pillocks vote without any consideration of nuance.
They aren't actually doing that, as far as I've seen.
There are a number of big ISPs in Europe that that have a "new" native v6+CGNATed v4 platform, and an "old" native v4+no v6 one. That's where a lot of the "I had to ask the ISP to disable v6 to get inbound connections" comes from -- the actual relevant part was getting out from behind CGNAT, and the loss of v6 was just a side-effect caused by the ISP moving you to their old platform.
Inbound v6 should generally work on those ISPs. If it didn't... I'd be tempted (perhaps unfairly) to blame the user for not configuring things properly, or their software for not supporting v6. A lot of people will give up and blame a problem on v6 when they would have found and fixed it instead on v4.
londons_explore · · focus · HN ↗
Then it's just a matter of letting people add their own videos directly to the service and it can become fully independent of YouTube.
t2r3121 · · focus · HN ↗
There are a minority of users who care about being able to host videos that violate YouTube/TikTok/Instagram policies. Unfortunately, a significant part of that minority is working with infringing or illegal content, which both prevents ad networks from working with you and attracts attention from law enforcement.
hashdava · · focus · HN ↗
t2r3121 · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
dzikimarian · · focus · HN ↗
psd1 · · focus · HN ↗
bilegeek · · focus · HN ↗
psd1 · · focus · HN ↗
When i was 20, i was reflexively cynical, because it let me pose as intellectual without the burden of having to learn or think. As an adult, i find that pose very fucking obvious.
My interest was piqued by the concept of natting ip6, and why an isp might do so, and why cgnat might be disabled if you ask the isp to disable ip6.
bilegeek · · focus · HN ↗
...bb-but I thought cynicism was the same thing as experience![1]
No but seriously, I agree it is primarily "we can't be arsed to change our methods".
"Primarily" is not everything; the other 10-20% is the long tail of everything else. Europe is getting much harder on filesharing[3][4] because of business interests, and - despite the much better regulation - there's probably some "you shouldn't be hosting things on a residential connection anyways, pay us for a business connection peasants" like in the US[2].
Of course, all these ready-made restrictions are then easily adaptable for abuse (when's the next Chat Control proposal anyways?), so there's not much pushback from above...
Cynicism is easily a thought-terminating cliche, but it is unfortunately earned nowadays, especially as a coping mechanism for a feeling of helplessness against the usually stupid, sometimes malicious forces at play (Hanlon's Razor doesn't account for weaponization of stupidity).
[1]<a href="https://youtu.be/v0VA6u8cTxE?t=540" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/v0VA6u8cTxE?t=540
[2]<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18238827">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18238827
[3]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_in_Europe" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_survei...
[4]<a href="https://torrentfreak.com/?s=europe" rel="nofollow">https://torrentfreak.com/?s=europe
psd1 · · focus · HN ↗
It's common, at least in the UK, for residential lines to block smtp inbound. That's an ACL, which is operationally ~free. NAT does not serve the purposes you've outlined.
Some cynicism is warranted about, e.g. chat control, but it's better explained by good-faith desire to fight egregious crime coupled with low care for the privacy invasion. Other people have different values to you and me.
It's hard to reconcile an EU government in anyone's pocket with gdpr and dma, which afaics serve citizens and no big interests. Like most governments, the EU is somewhat fractious and incoherent, so it's not a given that everything they do is citizen-friendly. But i, for one, accept that law enforcement should exist; accept that this is inevitably a trade-off against citizen rights; concede that preventing the next bataclan is nigh-on impossible; and understand why some might, to that end, desire greater power to comb through conversations. I don't agree, but i also don't need to assume conspiracy. At heart, the problem is not that all government is evil - although you're welcome to that view - it's that thick pillocks vote without any consideration of nuance.
Dagger2 · · focus · HN ↗
There are a number of big ISPs in Europe that that have a "new" native v6+CGNATed v4 platform, and an "old" native v4+no v6 one. That's where a lot of the "I had to ask the ISP to disable v6 to get inbound connections" comes from -- the actual relevant part was getting out from behind CGNAT, and the loss of v6 was just a side-effect caused by the ISP moving you to their old platform.
Inbound v6 should generally work on those ISPs. If it didn't... I'd be tempted (perhaps unfairly) to blame the user for not configuring things properly, or their software for not supporting v6. A lot of people will give up and blame a problem on v6 when they would have found and fixed it instead on v4.
psd1 · · focus · HN ↗