No, there's a difference.

The same reasons apply to why I don't like the concept of #Peertube & P2P for large files in general, except #Torrent, because that's historically a different story.

#Peertube advertises itself as censorship-resilient, because it can store videos #decentralised among many peers. However the reality is, that it's simply not in any way economically feasible to just spread huge video amounts by duplicating them on many machines. It does not make any sense, once it passes a certain amount * size threshold.

So, in reality, a #Peertube instance is either de facto a centralised server or a bunch of servers, each having their own videos, but without duplication among several peers. Imagine a #Peertube instance, which does not have any duplication whatsoever, then there would be still way too many videos.

I guess, we could call this the #YouTubeProblem.

The only way to host trillions of videos or even when we are only talking about millions, is if you provide a heavily monetized, centralised service as a huge billion dollar company, like Google & Alphabet.

Otherwise, you will be so far away from #YouTube, just dreaming of replacing it, or offering a valid alternative, would be utterly laughable.

I think, the only way to truly believe in #Peertube is to not fathom how extremely huge #YouTube actually is.

Now, that said, the same applies to any P2P solution for large, hardly compressable files, which *must* serve files.

The reason #Torrent works, is because it is based on popularity. If something is popular, then more will seed. If something loses all popularity, it dies.

Now, with #Torrent, that's natural, but imagine you have a video or large file storage platform, where you *need* those files available.

How do you make sure unpopular content does not die?

Make your own node & provide it in a de facto #centralised way. Now, we return to the beginning...