Idea for a video content consolidation website I had - Platform agnostic wrapper for video hosting websites.

[PeachDream]

There have obviously been a ton of video hosting sites made as alternatives to YouTube.
I had a slightly different idea for something easier that could be made to help reduce YT's power over the Internet.
Whenever people try to create an alternative to YT's algorithms it always comes with the need to host entirely separate content.
This is the hardest part about creating a video sharing website, but it really doesn't seem necessary at all. There's a ton of alt video sharing sites already that mostly work.

What if instead you just created a site with the other features of a video sharing website (i.e. subscriptions, playlists, recommendations, dis/liking videos) but ultimately just linked to or embedded the content from other video hosting platforms, without hosting any media yourself?
This would also allow people to switch between mirrors for censored content seamlessly.
I've typed up a more detailed description in the attached PDF.

Me and a friend wanted to whip up a proof of concept website, since without the need for content to host, the resources required to do so wouldn't be too extravagant.

I honestly just wanted to see if there was anything similar to this already being worked on?
I know some browser plugins may implement certain features, but I guess this is a more comprehensive take on the idea?

Also would there be any legal issues with this?
If you're just linking to or embedding content on another website, surely not, right? It's not like you're actually making an illicit copy of any content.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

There is VidLii which tries to recreate the feel of '00s YT.

(although there seems to be a lot of 2edgy funposting there)

 

[Breadbassket]

Its an interesting idea although I think you could run into some legal issues over something like "distributing the contents from another site". Also, how would this site be maintained exactly? Donations?

There is VidLii that tries to recreate the feel of '00s YT.

(although there seems to be a lot of 2edgy funposting there)

The userbase of VidLii in my experience is such that on every 2nd-3rd profile you will find something with Nazi imagery. I think the owner gave up on trying to moderate it, ironic Hitler enthusiasts or not.

 

[PeachDream]

There is VidLii which tries to recreate the feel of '00s YT.

(although there seems to be a lot of 2edgy funposting there)

That looks like it has it's own videos though, and doesn't pull anything from YouTube?

Its an interesting idea although I think you could run into some legal issues over something like "distributing the contents from another site".

I mean I've heard complaining about the possibility of a "Link Tax" in the EU, which might cover something like this.
But look at how most people torrent stuff, the website that hosts the magnet links isn't really liable for any piracy as they do not actually host any content, merely links.

Also, how would this site be maintained exactly? Donations?

I suppose so.
Doesn't seem like it would have super high operating costs, at least at first.
Can't imagine it'd be too much worse than any internet forum, that is almost entirely text data being sent and received.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

That looks like it has it's own videos though, and doesn't pull anything from YouTube?

Looks that way. There's videos there that aren't on YT, and vids on YT that isn't there.

 

[Kosher Dill]

This would also allow people to switch between mirrors for censored content seamlessly.

This seems like it's skipping over the most difficult part of the whole thing. Who is creating all these mirrors, and where?
It seems to me that if we already were in a scenario where mirrors were commonly available we'd be in a much better place than we are.

 

[Breadbassket]

I mean I've heard complaining about the possibility of a "Link Tax" in the EU, which might cover something like this.
But look at how most people torrent stuff, the website that hosts the magnet links isn't really liable for any piracy as they do not actually host any content, merely links.

I suppose so.
Doesn't seem like it would have super high operating costs, at least at first.
Can't imagine it'd be too much worse than any internet forum, that is almost entirely text data being sent and received.

I mean it doesn't hurt to try, after all it is effectively a wrapper so you don't have to worry about crazy up front costs associated with video hosting. I think it could give a way for people upset with Youtube policies a way to express themselves while not leaving the site altogether. The reality is that Youtube is too big of a giant to topple at the moment anyway.

The real big conundrum in all this is while this is community based, how will you go about finding the people to basically curate this entire operation in the first place?

 

[PeachDream]

This seems like it's skipping over the most difficult part of the whole thing. Who is creating all these mirrors, and where?
It seems to me that if we already were in a scenario where mirrors were commonly available we'd be in a much better place than we are.

A ton of creators already use mirror sites.
If someone has certain vids pulled from YT they almost certainly upload them to Odysee or Bitchute or something.
The job of this website isn't to *create* the mirrors, it's to create an interface that can switch between video platforms seamlessly so you never have to look for a mirror ever. It would basically merge sites like YT, Odysee, Vimeo, etc. into one platform.

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

Part of the reason why Youtube has its stranglehold is because people have been trained to do everything in a WWW browser. Guess which company conveniently controls the most popular WWW browser.

There are two good, non-exclusive solutions:

• A man should host his videos himself, with a video tag, FTP, or whatever else.
• Only make the videos available over Bittorrent, with the expectation that others will seed and make this different from the first option.

Note that true Bittorrent can't be done through a WWW browser, because the creators conveniently prevent such things. Trying to solve this problem engineered by the company setting so many of the rules is like squaring a circle, give up.

 

[PeachDream]

Part of the reason why Youtube has its stranglehold is because people have been trained to do everything in a WWW browser. Guess which company conveniently controls the most popular WWW browser.

Saying that google is going to outright force their browser to not work on a website even though it doesn't do anything actually illegal seems like quite a stretch.
Is there any precedent for this?


Torrenting every video you want to watch, or even just the ones that were removed for slightly edgy humor, or because they talked about the CCP in a negative light, or what have you, is not a practical solution.

 

[UERISIMILITUDO]

Is there any precedent for this?

There is for MicroSoft, but Google has so far only made its websites fail in other WWW browsers, rather than that.

Torrenting every video you want to watch, or even just the ones that were removed for slightly edgy humor, or because they talked about the CCP in a negative light, or what have you, is not a practical solution.

Sure, but perhaps the extreme convenience of watching videos without downloading any special client is at odds with the goals of decentralization, and one must give.

 

[Chalkman]

There is for MicroSoft, but Google has so far only made its websites fail in other WWW browsers, rather than that.

I do not believe that simply hosting a website that merges content together would flag the service as hostile or an affront against the platform itself. YT works off of engagement, and if PeachDream's idea facilitates more of that on the platform, google will NOT go after a small independent website just because its not YT. This isn't even an issue because as you said, they only ruin their own websites, which no source was provided for anyways. This simply doesn't happen.

Sure, but perhaps the extreme convenience of watching videos without downloading any special client is at odds with the goals of decentralization, and one must give.

This convenience may be harmful to the goal of decentralization, but this project seems like it would not be attempting to decentralize anything. You should not expect people to engage with time wasting actions for something so simple, as putting entertainment behind a walled garden is bound to prevent the vector of distribution from engaging as many people at a time. The point of this idea is to help people find more content, and forcing people to torrent every video wastes storage space and bandwidth, puts extra layers of abstraction behind a novel action and doesn't solve anything.

 

[Distended Gunt]

There are some technical challenges to leeching YouTube bandwidth in this manner. As far as I'm aware, only HLS (360p, 720p) content can be directly streamed using a third party player and if you want to support other formats, you must use their player or proxy the DASH segments through your servers. Rather than reinventing the wheel, perhaps you could extend something like Piped or Invidious to include some concept of an internal community?

 

[Cherry Eyed Hamster]

There is for MicroSoft, but Google has so far only made its websites fail in other WWW browsers, rather than that.

I can’t see Google fucking up their own browser just because someone creates an obscure offshoot of YouTube. Their browser hosts many sites and videos on how to create YouTube mirrors.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

I do not believe that simply hosting a website that merges content together would flag the service as hostile or an affront against the platform itself. YT works off of engagement, and if PeachDream's idea facilitates more of that on the platform, google will NOT go after a small independent website just because its not YT. This isn't even an issue because as you said, they only ruin their own websites, which no source was provided for anyways. This simply doesn't happen.

Google won't deliberately go after a small independent website. Though if it became big enough to make a difference, they will.

 

[PeachDream]

There are some technical challenges to leeching YouTube bandwidth in this manner. As far as I'm aware, only HLS (360p, 720p) content can be directly streamed using a third party player and if you want to support other formats, you must use their player or proxy the DASH segments through your servers. Rather than reinventing the wheel, perhaps you could extend something like Piped or Invidious to include some concept of an internal community?

I mean even if people have to click through a link to watch the video on YouTube (or whatever platform) that doesn't strike me as too bad so long as all their subscriptions and such can be managed totally on my platform. Embedding would just make it easier for those who don't need 1080p + if that is the case.

Google won't deliberately go after a small independent website. Though if it became big enough to make a difference, they will.

I mean there's competitors to YT, pirating websites, sites criticizing google, and evil hate sites like the Kiwi Farms themselves that all work just fine on standard Chrome.
If people think Google is harvesting data through their browser, or using their near monopoly to help facilitate the widespread roll-out of web DRM then they may have 'ideological reservations' but still use the browser out of convenience.
Google choosing to outright break their own browser on websites they don't like might actually force people to start migrating away, so I doubt they'd bother.