Compared to text and images and audio, the economics of hosting video seem to overwhelmingly favor massive centralized services. Youtube had an early mover advantage and "won" and Google owns youtube. And they also own Chrome, and control a substantial % of the standards processes governing the web. Also, they are a fucking advertising company.
I've seen some people approach this with "Pay for Youtube Premium then! Show them that there is an eager customer base for non-ad-supported!" but my rather large problem with that is that youtube's "North Star" of maximizing watch time led them to build their business around white male grievance and other such socially corrosive shit, and when you can support individual video creators more directly (eg Patreon, which of course has developed its own problems), rewarding the platform for essentially being the monopolist nobody can afford to walk away from is totally out of the question for me. Hearing from video creator friends about what it's like dealing with a spurious DMCA takedown from some copyright troll makes it very clear to me that this company behaves as if they have no competition. And they're largely correct to assume that.
If I were making this post on Mastodon a bunch of people would show up to recommend PeerTube and while it's neat and I'm glad people built that, it really really does not seem like it or any other decentralized/distributed solution could ever achieve even a fraction of youtube's scale (and many of its users probably argue that that has never been its goal). Like I said, the economics of hosting video are incredibly capital-intensive, and I don't know if that is something we can clever our way past.
This is the part where I'd say "but wait, there's hope! [promising new development] might offer us a way out of this mess" - alas, as the title says, I have no idea where we go from here. I just know that video, more for ill than for good maybe, has attained a frighteningly central social importance and lots of bad things will happen downstream if one of the least responsible companies on earth continues to have a monopoly on it.
I wonder if a big part of why Youtube is such a money pit is not inherent to video hosting but to the fact that Youtube gives free, unlimited video hosting to just anyone, for any purpose.
I've been looking for a new apartment and I realized that YouTube is just, like, subsidising realtors with free video hosting of walkthrough videos. Personal family home videos people pass around. Internal demos or previews of videos that will then later be publicly posted on YouTube as separate videos. There's entire industries that are just leaning on YouTube for free video hosting without thinking about it. Tons and tons of unlisted videos that make them no money or very little money, flowing around.
So I kind of wonder if video hosting is just... something you can actually do if you do it sensibly. Like, Vimeo is still around, and Streamable seems like a sensible solution for actual "I need to host a video" tasks?
