this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
690 points (99.3% liked)

Selfhosted

46653 readers
504 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lefixxx@lemmy.world 68 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah I remember once when my friends Synology started acting harmful when he run jellyfin on it. it started off gasing mustard gas. It poisoned the well and made his son addicted to zyns. All of the cars in his neighborhood needed new batteries. The country's GTP dropped a lot that month and the ozone layer is gone. Thank God YouTube stopped platforming such harmful content. Too bad so luch damage has already been done.

Yes, exactly. The server I run jellyfin on kept promising me cake, though I am fairly certain the cake is a lie.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Synology is already enshittifying itself

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

I would go so far as to say they are already in a shit state, but they're just not stopping the process yet.

[–] jim@programming.dev 122 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think a few folks haven't read the article or know who Jeff Geerling is. The title of this article is confusing.

Jeff posted a video on YT about how to self-host your own media in 2024. He recently got a violation from YT that YT considers his video to be harmful and dangerous. He appealed, got denied, but then the update is that YT removed the violation.

[–] hietsu@sopuli.xyz 20 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Saw the video… It mentions ”ripping” and even shows clips of some blockbuster movies. No wonder any copyright-sensitive automation gets triggered pretty fast. This will only get worse.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

None of that is illegal. He states he purchased the media. And it's certainly not harmful content.

[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think if the ripping includes de-DRM-ing it's is illegal in a lot of countries. I am not saying it's right, we should own our own content, I am just saying it as a fact.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah isn't that crazy?

Copyright by itself only protects distribution but then laws like DMCA (US) and EUCA (EU) make drm removal illegal. Its hard to believe that these laws exist and should be opposed at every possible opportunity.

Can you imagine buying an ebook and being told you can't remove malware from some strings of text or you'll go to prison? Also you have no consumer protections like refunds or ability to pass down the license so you're literally have worse consumer rights than a physical product and digital data costs nothing!

The current copyright framework is so broken and so toxic it needs to be completely destroyed.

[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, totally agree. You know, I would perhaps be even ok keeping the drm, I have been thinking about it the other day. I would have to have a guarantee that I can use it even 50 years from now and it would have to be public, open-source solution, not owned but shaity companies like Adobe, Apple and Amazon (there is really no choice nowadays), who will use this to also track us. Plus, as you say, I want to have a right to pass it onto someone (but more like lend it to a friend, because I can't imagine somebody caring about inheriting my 50 year old books, really. About the refunds, I think some online stores offer (limited time) refunds and if you buy e.g. physical book, especially in the physical store, you are also very limited when it comes to returns.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

What really triggers me is that digital products that are significantly cheaper, easier and safer (environment etc) than physical counterparts have significantly worse rights and protections.

Even if I agreed with the idea of copyright the economical implementation is so absurd.

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What if I decide to digitize my entire movie catalog? I would have to rip those DVDs and blurays...

[–] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah. That's illegal in lots of countries.

[–] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But it is legal in the country he lives in as well as the country YouTube is headquartered in.

[–] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is it? I'm not totally sure, as I'm not from the US but I think the DMCA is the nasty player in this game.

[–] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Technically I'm half right and half wrong (I think). It's not illegal to backup media that one owns, but it is illegal to break DRM/copy protection which is required to rip most physical media these days.

Suffice to say the legality of it is a cluster fuck, but the morality, in my opinion, is pretty clear. Fuck the corpos.

[–] Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah fuck them.

Nearly all digital media is locked so in order to back up something you own you'll have to break the lock. Fuck. Them. (And the people who voted for these laws)

[–] TonyOstrich@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

You are allowed to record content like a broadcast though, which makes me wonder if that means that ripping is illegal, but piping it through a capture card isn't?

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A lot of people don't realise that the application of the VCR was technically copyright infringement, especially so when you lent tapes to your friends.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pretty fast? The video was uploaded in 2024.

[–] hietsu@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 days ago

”Pretty fast” after they tuned those automations to the current setting. And they will keep turning it that way unfortunately.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 50 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's pretty harmful to Googles cloud business.

[–] grueling_spool@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago

Who would win:

  • A 2 trillion dollar multinational technology company
  • Some guy's hobby project
[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 51 points 2 days ago
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 62 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Jeff should consider hosting on Peertube and keeping his Patreon active. He's awesome and more than capable, I'd mirror him in a hot second.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He's on float plane. I think he's trying to make a living, so I'd assume YouTube ad revenue is a factor

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He's on float plane

I'll never support anyone on that platform. I'll never do anything to give LTT a cent.

[–] oppy1984@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm not big on LTT either, I'd like to see him on Nebula. The price is reasonable and they have some really good high quality content.

[–] grozzle@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I seem to remember Jeff explaining his choice, and a big factor was that Nebula doesn't have comments under videos, nor any other similar forums for video posters and watchers to chat. I think he said he wouldn't be happy without that direct interaction.

[–] oppy1984@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

I admit I don't watch every video, I'm subscribed but I just kind of let videos come to my home feed and watch that way. I mainly use YT as background noise while doing something else.

His reasoning makes sense, so I guess I'll just continue to watch on YT since I have no desire to join FP. Thanks for the info!

[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you tell me more please? Or send a link please? I would like to know what happened, thanks.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's been talked about to death. It's been analysed to death.

But here's a very detailed and thorough breakdown:

https://youtu.be/0Udn7WNOrvQ

[–] dieTasse@feddit.org 2 points 1 day ago

I see, you mean this, I thought there is something new. Thank you for sharing. What I didn't like about Luise's contribution to this drama is that he focused solely on LTT's side and didn't mention the other side. Because I think both sides made some mistakes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 75 points 3 days ago (3 children)

It says (updated) but what is the update?

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 154 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Update (one day later):

YouTube has just reinstated the video, after what I presume is a human review process. I wish it didn't take making noise on socials to get past the 'AI deny' process :(

Go forth, and self-host all the things! I'll post further updates in this issue in my YouTube project.

[–] meldrik@lemmy.wtf 31 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Go forth, and self-host all the things!

He means self-hosting as in hosting his own PeerTube instance? Right??? 🙏

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 79 points 3 days ago (17 children)

YouTube restored the video, but not until Jeff had made a huge stink about it (and rightfully so, those yt fuckers can eat a dick).

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (10 children)

Isn't that what an mp3 players main purpose is? Are mp3 players bad now?

[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 100 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yes cause they can’t sell you a subscription for your mp3 player.

Fucking rent seeking behaviour from corporate parasites.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 43 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Correct, if you ain't streaming from corpo, you are denying them engagement and profits

That's a crime, shit Lord

[–] Guidy@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I cannot stress enough that I would download a car.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] suswrkr@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

it would be amazing if geerlingguy was the one to make youtube go mask off

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Google has been mask off since they removed "don't be evil" as their slogan, and they've been proving it ever since. Apparently people don't pay attention!

[–] Ptsf@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Hey kid.... You wanna self host an api call? 😈

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›