More disturbingly bad pop psychology misdiagnosis of the "social media" problem ...
> "The mainstream social internet is so big; everyone is connected to everyone, over a billion on Facebook alone. The consequences of connection — fake news, radicalization, massive targeted harassment campaigns, algorithmically-generated psychological torment, inane bullshit — were not part of what we were sold."
I agree all these things are bad, but they're not new, and they're definitely not "consequences of connection", but the consequences of corporate-owned media, ad-based revenue model, and political bitterness caused by rising inequality. We migrated to the net in the 90s because the same perfect storm had hopelessly warped TV, and we naively thought the net might be different.
The good news is, it's still much cheaper and easier to set up a webserver or any other kind of internet server for ourselves, individually or as a community, than it has ever been to set up a micro-radio ("pirate radio") or micro-TV ("pirate TV") broadcast. I helped set up some micro-radio stations in early 2000s, so I'm speaking from experience here. Plus, servers can do a much greater range of things, and any webserver has much greater potential reach than local radio or TV (cool as they are)
Imagine a federated platform like #PeerTube that replace #iTunes for distributing podcasts. It would have all the benefits of pirate radio (or #HackerPublicRadio); diverse voices, a plurality of sources, decentralized production and consumption, plus all the benefits of iTunes; any podcaster can potentially heard by anyone in a global audience, and without the downsides of a platform controlled by a single gatekeeper like Apple corporation.
@strypey Agree with everything you say, including YT vs cartoons, but in order to get away from the corporate profit syndrome that drives most of what's bad on social media, the fediverse needs to rethink the "just create your own instance" model. Most people don't have the knowledge/resources/time to do that. They are willing to pay - via Patreon, for example - to support those who do, but we run the risk of missing the opportunity to make meaningful change.
re: federated platform for podcasts...
while I'm not aware of an existing one, potentially funkwhale can serve this function...
@xavavu maybe, but see:
@strypey Don't most people use RSS for podcasts?
(I don't know, I just know I listen to podcasts without using iTunes)
@switch @artsyhonker yes, "podcasting" began as Apple-speak for 'delivering audio blogs by #RSS' before it became a generic buzzphrase ;P But like YT does for video, iTunes does more than just delivery, it's also a place to discover new content and new creators. We've had #FreeCode tube site stacks for years (#Plumi, #MediaGoblin etc), but #PeerTube is a game changer because is allows federated search across multiple independent tube sites via #ActivityPub.
@notclacke @adam @artsyhonker @switch @wakest I would object more if they were called "iPodcasts", and if most people hadn't already forgotten the origin of the term ;) "Audio feeds" is fine amongst us geeks (who know what a "feed" is in a digital context) but I can't see it overtaking "podcasting" on the inside at this point in the race.
@artsyhonker of course, sorry for the flooding
@artsyhonker for future reference, Mastodon gives you the ability to 'mute conversation', which effectively allows you to untag yourself from a thread you're no longer interested in.
@moonman not necessarily. There are plenty of #FreeCode analytics packages (#Matomo etc) that could be built in or integrated using plug-ins.
@strypey @moonman Not sure how a federated platform really could accurately count views, as any of the nodes could be lying. As far as I can see, it works require some Bitcoin like leger of each view to be verifiable. That would be prohibitive though, as views are much more voluminous than transactions in BTC.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a different problem to me. I mean, if you want to confirm another node has a bit of a file, all them to send it over and confirm the hash, sure.
If you ask how many views they've served for a video, how to confirm when they tell it's 10,000? This is more like asking #BitTorrent how many times a file has ever been downloaded by everyone, than how many seeders there are or similar. Does BitTorrent show that?
@Blort @moonman my understanding is that a tracker can identify leachers who never seed, and give them lower priority on downloads than users who do seed. I'm not sure how the tech works though, and it could be I'm totally wrong. Some discussion here:
What's interesting about that link is that it confirms nodes can lie, but that they suggest nodes can compare how much has been uploaded to what the other side says has been uploaded to try and catch faking. I still think this could be spoofed by telling each node that you uploaded a ton to other nodes and then incrementing by the actual amount uploaded by the real amount as each node can only check it's own figures. I'm no expert though.
What is nice, is that by #PeerTube using #BitTorrent, it benefits from the no-doubt large amount of work already done there to prevent spoofing. It just seems though that there would be a bit less of a financial incentive for people to bother spoofing seed/leech ratios than view counts. If PeerTube really took off, I suspect that it would encourage the spoofers to get more determined and force new anti spoofing measures to be introduced.
@Blort @moonman given that I don't think #PeerTube intends to build in monetization, leaving that to third parties like #Patreon, #Liberapay etc, I think view counts will only matter on PT about as much as they do on vanilla BitTorrent. Who really pays attention to view counts anyway (I don't even look at them unless I have a specific reason). Totally agree that working with mature protocol is good, as there's a large base of existing protocol implementers who can help solve spoofing issues.
Regardless of what #PeerTube code, view count, demographics and engagement will always be important to full time content creators. They're the most important factors to sponsors and advertisers who, like it or not, pay for the vast majority of content creation today.
I'd love to see socially minded alternatives (eg Liberapay) baked in, but sadly there's ample evidence that these alone aren't competitive to fund large scale content creation.
Yes, we can say "screw advertisers and sponsors. Let's keep the PeerTube's platform pure and away from that stuff", however without them, PeerTube loses most of the funding for content creators, and thus most of the content, viewers and social impact. It's essentially saying we'd rather give most potential cultural influence to #YouTube rather than accept #advertising. Satisfying, but ineffective. It's the niche Puritan dilemma.
Yes, but underlying that is the problem that websites accepted pay-per-click models that newspapers, radio, and TV never had to. If they had just kept their powder dry, and waited until the web was obviously getting more eyeballs that those three combined, a) they could have insisted on pay-per-display and b) better business models for funding websites may have got out ahead of ads
@lnxw48a1 @moonman @Blort also 1) advertisers could have been sold their own websites, instead of patches of space on other people's pages, 2) ad networks could have pivoted to selling website services (and many now have), 3) websites could have insisted on pay-per-display, or sold commercial website services as a side hussle, and probably made more money that way without creating #SurveillanceCapitalism
@Blort @moonman citation please? I haven't see any solid numbers, but an informal survey of the YT creators I have watched, who make anything resembling a living, suggests they do it via Patreon and other micro-patronage platforms, not via YT ads, which I've heard pay appallingly little to creators.
@moonman @notclacke maybe, but only if you get much more information than which posts got attention. It's also important to know *why* they got attention. Because people appreciated your nuanced arguments and references? Because they're trying to dogpile you for views they disagree with? Because they thought it was so bad it was unintentionally funny (#TheRoom)?
Sure, but you seem to think that's always bad. I think that like any tool or technology, the moral status of a broadcast depends entirely on what you intend to achieve with it, or if you want to take a consequentialist position, what results it has in practice.