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.
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 ↗
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 ↗