Add Video Streaming Section #671

jonah · 2018-12-20T04:58:17Z

asddsaz commented

2018-12-20 04:58:17 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Description: Add section for Video Streaming providers.

Added Providers:
To main:

LBRY
PeerTube
FreeTube/Invidio

To Worth Mentioning:

KopyKate (Warning: Uncensored)
DTube

**Description**: Add section for Video Streaming providers. Added Providers: To main: - LBRY - PeerTube - FreeTube/Invidio To Worth Mentioning: - KopyKate (**Warning: Uncensored**) - DTube

ghost commented

2018-12-20 07:48:03 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@Vincevrp

hugoncosta commented

2018-12-25 15:06:10 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'd just change the warning, I believe it should be inside LBRY's card as it does not pertain to all of them. KopyKate I don't believe it has that much "worth" as it's a project still in alpha without much activity in zeronet.

ADepic commented

2019-01-04 16:01:49 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I think you should remove invidious and freetube since they fetch youtube videos and are not streaming services. I think its better to have a seperate tab for streaming services like peertube and LBRY and a different one for youtube frontends that fetch youtube videos. Check out my PR #694 since now it only have youtube frontends.

I think Bitchute should also be in the worth mentioning, because although it isn't federated, it is a lot more popular than peertube.

I think you should remove invidious and freetube since they fetch youtube videos and are not streaming services. I think its better to have a seperate tab for streaming services like peertube and LBRY and a different one for youtube frontends that fetch youtube videos. Check out my PR #694 since now it only have youtube frontends. I think Bitchute should also be in the worth mentioning, because although it isn't federated, it is a lot more popular than peertube.

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 16:05:57 +00:00

index.html

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 16:05:56 +00:00

Peertube has an android app. Does it have desktop applications?

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 16:06:59 +00:00

index.html

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 16:06:59 +00:00

IMHO this should be remove due to it not being a streaming service and added to a different section.

Also freetube and invidious are two different softwares

IMHO this should be remove due to it not being a streaming service and added to a different section. Also freetube and invidious are two different softwares

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 16:13:17 +00:00

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

What I think should change

index.html

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 16:12:10 +00:00

Maybe put dtube here instead of worth mentioning to replace invidious?

ADepic (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 16:12:51 +00:00

Maybe add bitchute here since it is more popular p2p streaming service than the others, and move dtube up

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 20:11:00 +00:00

index.html

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 20:11:00 +00:00

Also freetube and invidious are two different softwares

I understand, but Freetube is based on Invidio1. This is meant to be similar to how KeePass and KeePassXC are together2.

I'll try to make this more apparent.

IMHO this should be remove due to it not being a streaming service and added to a different section.

Remove PeerTube? I thought PeerTube was doing a really good job, I would be open to considering changing it to a PeerTube provider. This might be a better choice.

What do you think should replace it?

> Also freetube and invidious are two different softwares I understand, but Freetube is based on Invidio[1](https://github.com/omarroth/invidious#made-with-invidious). This is meant to be similar to how KeePass and KeePassXC are together[2](https://www.privacytools.io/#pw). I'll try to make this more apparent. > IMHO this should be remove due to it not being a streaming service and added to a different section. Remove PeerTube? I thought PeerTube was doing a really good job, I would be open to considering changing it to a PeerTube provider. This might be a better choice. What do you think should replace it?

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 20:11:23 +00:00

index.html

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 20:11:23 +00:00

I would, but cannot find Bitchute's source code. This leads me to believe it is non-free, is this correct? If you can find the source code (under a free software license) I would certainly consider adding it.@ADepic

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-01-04 20:17:30 +00:00

index.html

asddsaz (Migrated from github.com) commented

2019-01-04 20:17:30 +00:00

@ADepic It is mainly accessed via the web but, some people do self-host. Can you send Android client URL?

ADepic commented

2019-01-19 21:06:40 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Yes Bitchute is closed source, however it is a hosted service so it doesn't matter if the source code is open, since they could host any code they wanted on their servers. The main reason online software is open source is so that it can be federated and self hosted. Bitchute is neither, and thats why it should only be in worth mentioning.

I think it should be there so that people can find a platform with some actual content creators. Lots of people harmed by youtube flock to bitchute, so it actually has content on it.

There should be a warning about the fact that it is not federated, but say the reason it is in worth mentioning is so that you can find a youtube alternative with some content on it.

Yes Bitchute is closed source, however it is a hosted service so it doesn't matter if the source code is open, since they could host any code they wanted on their servers. The main reason online software is open source is so that it can be federated and self hosted. Bitchute is neither, and thats why it should only be in worth mentioning. I think it should be there so that people can find a platform with some actual content creators. Lots of people harmed by youtube flock to bitchute, so it actually has content on it. There should be a warning about the fact that it is not federated, but say the reason it is in worth mentioning is so that you can find a youtube alternative with some content on it.

asddsaz commented

2019-02-19 03:07:14 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@ADepic Non-free Software is an issue directly related to privacy.
This is not something I would recommend adding. I would recommend limiting its usage.

More info on free software: https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software

@ADepic Non-free Software is an issue directly related to privacy. This is not something I would recommend adding. I would recommend limiting its usage. More info on free software: https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software ![privacy is impossible without Free Software](https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/posters/privacy-free-software-sign.svg)

ADepic commented

2019-02-19 08:05:29 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Bitchute isn't software in the sense that it is free/non-free.
Read this:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html

Bitchute isn't software in the sense that it is free/non-free. Read this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html

👍 1

gjhklfdsa commented

2019-04-03 17:50:17 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@ADepic If I understand correctly the Bitchute website is non-free

ADepic commented

2019-04-03 21:00:46 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Services cannot be non-free. Its a different issue to software...

Federated services like peertube are better, but bitchute is a good alternative suggestion because it actually has some content.

Services cannot be non-free. Its a different issue to software... Federated services like peertube are better, but bitchute is a good alternative suggestion because it actually has some content.

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2019-04-21 20:52:33 +00:00

Mikaela (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

There appears to be a merge conflict due to section splitting.

kewde (Migrated from github.com) requested changes 2019-04-26 18:13:24 +00:00

kewde (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

I don't see how these tools are enhancing privacy?
Decentralized torrenting like tools are pretty much leaking to the whole world that I'm watching a particular video.

I don't see how these tools are enhancing privacy? Decentralized torrenting like tools are pretty much leaking to the whole world that I'm watching a particular video.

jonah commented

2019-04-26 21:39:09 +00:00

I think it's "private" as opposed to say, using YouTube. And I don't think it's true peer-to-peer, at least if it works the same way Mastodon works. The PeerTube instance is what downloads/caches the video, not your client, so the world would merely see that one specific instance downloaded a video, versus one specific user.

kewde commented

2019-04-27 12:42:15 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The specific instance still sees that you've requested the video though, so instead of trusting YouTube you trust another (potentially unknown) individual?

Don't get me wrong, I like these type of alternatives, but I'm having a hard time seeing the tangible privacy benefits over using YouTube without an account and a VPN.

The specific instance still sees that you've requested the video though, so instead of trusting YouTube you trust another (potentially unknown) individual? Don't get me wrong, I like these type of alternatives, but I'm having a hard time seeing the tangible privacy benefits over using YouTube without an account and a VPN.

Mikaela commented

2019-04-29 10:07:19 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The PeerTube instance is what downloads/caches the video, not your client, so the world would merely see that one specific instance downloaded a video, versus one specific user.

I think you are wrong here and it is your browser which caches the video. Quoting from PeerTube introduction:

Video load is reduced thanks to P2P (BitTorrent) in the web browser via WebTorrent.

Webtorrent again says that Brave supports it directly.

I feel a bit conflicted between picking privacy and P2P and I think I lean a bit to the P2P side. Does decision have to be picked as if P2P is a problem, then Brave should be removed as they support WebTorrent and are working in integrating IPFS which we are also recommending?

> The PeerTube instance is what downloads/caches the video, not your client, so the world would merely see that one specific instance downloaded a video, versus one specific user. I think you are wrong here and it is your browser which caches the video. Quoting from [PeerTube introduction](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube#introduction): > Video load is reduced thanks to P2P (BitTorrent) in the web browser via [WebTorrent](https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent/blob/master/README.md). Webtorrent again says that Brave supports it directly. * * * * * I feel a bit conflicted between picking privacy and P2P and I think I lean a bit to the P2P side. Does decision have to be picked as if P2P is a problem, then Brave should be removed as they support WebTorrent and are working in integrating IPFS which we are also recommending?

jonah commented

2019-04-29 15:54:11 +00:00

Thanks @Mikaela, looks like you were all right originally.

then Brave should be removed as they support WebTorrent

I disagree that this is an issue with Brave. Supporting a web protocol is different than implementing it as a key component of a service. WebTorrent support is okay, but if Brave were to say, implement some sort of shared cache between all their browsers with WebTorrent for performance then we'd have to reconsider that recommendation.

and are working in integrating IPFS which we are also recommending?

Maybe. I don't know how I feel about this, because IPFS is largely a public platform, but then the same could be said about PeerTube, or similar technologies like torrents in general. That almost seems like it should be a separate discussion.

Now we've reached the root of the problem with decentralized networks: they're great for taking control of your personal data, and they'll keep that data private from large centralized companies like Google/Facebook/etc, but they won't keep your activity private in the same way that Tor does for example, so they aren't good tools against mass surveillance. At this point we're running into issues like #880 and #848: Should we be recommending tools that will increase user's privacy above the status quo but won't necessarily do anything about government surveillance, or should we stick by our "protect your privacy against global mass surveillance" mantra and only recommend tools that will perfectly preserve your privacy online?

Thanks @Mikaela, looks like you were all right originally. --- > then Brave should be removed as they support WebTorrent I disagree that this is an issue with Brave. Supporting a web protocol is different than implementing it as a key component of a service. WebTorrent *support* is okay, but if Brave were to say, implement some sort of shared cache between all their browsers with WebTorrent for performance then we'd have to reconsider that recommendation. --- > and are working in integrating IPFS which we are also recommending? Maybe. I don't know how I feel about this, because IPFS is largely a [public platform](https://medium.com/pinata/ipfs-privacy-711f4b72b2ea), but then the same could be said about PeerTube, or similar technologies like torrents in general. That almost seems like it should be a separate discussion. Now we've reached the root of the problem with decentralized networks: they're great for taking control of your personal data, and they'll keep that data private *from large centralized companies* like Google/Facebook/etc, but they won't keep your *activity* private in the same way that Tor does for example, so they aren't good tools against mass surveillance. At this point we're running into issues like #880 and #848: Should we be recommending tools that will increase user's privacy *above the status quo* but won't necessarily do anything about government surveillance, or should we stick by our "protect your privacy against global mass surveillance" mantra and only recommend tools that will perfectly preserve your privacy online?

👍 1

asddsaz commented

2019-05-02 23:27:15 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I don't see how these tools are enhancing privacy?
Decentralized torrenting like tools are pretty much leaking to the whole world that I'm watching a particular video.

In response to BitTorrent comment:
The idea is that nobody know who you are. Especially if you follow the recommended security steps and use I2p/TOR. Sure, you must ask somebody for files but, you don't need to give any more personal info.

As to the others:
Peertube is mostly web based and am I unaware of any security bug or privacy threat in their software.
Fairly certain they don't follow you when you close the tab.

FreeTube stores data locally and supports TOR.
If I understand correctly.

Invidio has an onion address: http://axqzx4s6s54s32yentfqojs3x5i7faxza6xo3ehd4bzzsg2ii4fv2iid.onion/ (source)
No login is required.

> I don't see how these tools are enhancing privacy? > Decentralized torrenting like tools are pretty much leaking to the whole world that I'm watching a particular video. **In response to [BitTorrent](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent) comment:** The idea is that nobody know who you are. Especially if you follow the recommended security steps and use I2p/TOR. Sure, you must ask somebody for files but, you don't need to give any more personal info. As to the others: Peertube is mostly web based and am I unaware of any security bug or privacy threat in their software. Fairly certain they don't follow you when you close the tab. FreeTube stores data locally and supports TOR. If I understand correctly. Invidio has an onion address: [http://axqzx4s6s54s32yentfqojs3x5i7faxza6xo3ehd4bzzsg2ii4fv2iid.onion/](http://axqzx4s6s54s32yentfqojs3x5i7faxza6xo3ehd4bzzsg2ii4fv2iid.onion/) ([source](https://github.com/omarroth/invidious/wiki/Invidious-Instances)) No login is required.

Mikaela commented

2019-05-03 07:50:19 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Especially if you follow the recommended security steps and use I2p/TOR.

I2P welcomes Bittorrent traffic, but by torrenting through Tor, you compromise your anonymity and slow down the network.

Bittorrent over Tor isn't a good idea on Tor blog.

> Especially if you follow the recommended security steps and use I2p/TOR. I2P welcomes Bittorrent traffic, but by torrenting through Tor, you compromise your anonymity and slow down the network. * [ Bittorrent over Tor isn't a good idea ](https://blog.torproject.org/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea) on Tor blog.

asddsaz commented

2019-05-07 05:28:56 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@Mikaela The reason I say this is because networks like ZeroNet use TOR.
I2p support has been WIP for years: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/602

Web-based apps should work perfectly fine over TOR :)

@Mikaela The reason I say this is because networks like ZeroNet use TOR. I2p support has been WIP for years: https://github.com/HelloZeroNet/ZeroNet/pull/602 Web-based apps should work perfectly fine over TOR :)

👍 1

asddsaz commented

2019-06-08 18:18:18 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@Mikaela Latest PR should fix merge conflicts.
I also added "warning" to LBRY. :)

@Mikaela Latest PR should fix merge conflicts. I also added "warning" to LBRY. :)

netlify[bot] commented

2019-06-08 18:29:40 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!

Built with commit b8496fec2f

https://deploy-preview-671--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Deploy preview for *privacytools-io* ready! Built with commit b8496fec2f0c5cec4f401ecba22f6f77b05436a1 https://deploy-preview-671--privacytools-io.netlify.com

netlify[bot] commented

2019-06-08 18:30:09 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Deploy preview for privacytools-io ready!

Built with commit 01d8ab9aaf

https://deploy-preview-671--privacytools-io.netlify.com

Deploy preview for *privacytools-io* ready! Built with commit 01d8ab9aaf9e823f00eb502c35a25ed58f1e6b46 https://deploy-preview-671--privacytools-io.netlify.com

ggg27 commented

2019-08-14 17:52:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Just wanted to request the source code being added:

LBRY: https://github.com/lbryio

PeerTube: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube

FreeTube: https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube

Invidious: https://github.com/omarroth/invidious

KopyKate (proprietary) : https://github.com/misses-robot/KopyKate-Big

DTube: https://github.com/dtube/dtube

Also, consider adding MediaGoblin:
https://forum.privacytools.io/t/discussion-mediagoblin/1305

Just wanted to request the source code being added: > LBRY: https://github.com/lbryio > > PeerTube: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube > > FreeTube: https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube > > Invidious: https://github.com/omarroth/invidious > > KopyKate (proprietary) : https://github.com/misses-robot/KopyKate-Big > > DTube: https://github.com/dtube/dtube ______________ Also, consider adding MediaGoblin: https://forum.privacytools.io/t/discussion-mediagoblin/1305

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.

1 Participants

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#671