• °˖✧ ipha ✧˖°@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ‘catch’ is that running a service like this gets expensive fast and it’s the same with all the free image hosting sites.

        Catbox is run entirely by donations with anything left covered by the owner out of their own pocket. If the donations dry up, it will eventually have to shut down. Again, this isn’t unique to Catbox, all the free sites could easily suffer the same fate.

      • Virkkunen@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are files I’ve uploaded to them since their service started that are still there.

        After a while, files go into a “cold storage” and there’s a wait until the server retrieves it.

  • Ganbat@lemmyonline.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think imgchest.com deserves more recognition. It has a UI that’s a lot like old imgur, doesn’t compress the hell out of images and the person that runs it seems pretty cool.

    (I’ve also talked to the person who runs postimages, and they seem pretty cool to fwiw.)

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are a lot smaller than something like Imgur some they probably don’t have worldwide CDN to distribute images, so it will probably depend on the location where you are, but their offering of public API defintely outweights any possible slowdowns for me.

    • LollerCorleone@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They look good. Large size limit of 200 mb and NSFW-friendly. But unfortunately, according to their FAQ, they are blocked in Australia, UK, Ireland, Iran and Afghanistan (the latter two are not surprising though).

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same here in Australia. Might only be a select few smaller ISPs that have blocked it, ie the ones the government can bully easily.

          • VicFic!@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s seems like it’s only a dns level block, so changing to non-isp dns might help you bypass that restriction.

            • joshinya@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Also in Aus here, using ISP DNS, not blocked. I think what you generally find is that most ISP’s just don’t do the DNS blocks, even if they’re required to. Like you said, it’s very easily circumvented and also it just doesn’t lead to any measurable outcome other than the ISP customer’s dissatisfaction in some cases. It’s probably more profitable to retain the customers and deal with whatever regulatory blowback.

      • Pamasich@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        they are blocked in Australia, UK, Ireland, Iran and Afghanistan

        Seems to be blocked for a friend from the philippines too iirc. Combined with other replies saying they can access it from some of these, I assume that list is outdated.

  • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can just use fediverse (eg. kbin) to upload your image directly, without any of those instances?

    • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. The individual hosts of the Fediverse are limited on space, and jamming that limited space full of images, rather than using an external image hosting service, is worse for the sustainability of these spaces

      • aleph@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        In addition, help out your instance admins by resizing the image if you don’t need it in high resolution.

        Uploading a 250Kb file rather than a 2.5MB one makes a difference when thousands of users are doing it.

        • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @aleph As an instance admin myself, we are looking into fine-tuning those settings to limit uploads of an x amount in file size. But are we are looking into some thumbnail library to reduce the image sizes indeed.

        • Deebster@lemmyrs.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Saving images as webp gives massive savings, and I think everyone can view them nowadays.

      • Sl00k@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Someone somewhere has to host the image. Realistically it should be the same people hosting the instance so you don’t run into cases where historical posts have all their images dropped. In an absolute ideal world everyone selfhosts their own images, but that’s an absolute fantasy.

        • LollerCorleone@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because pretty much all instances are being run by volunteers and hobbyists, and not a for-profit who is profiting from your content. This is just something nice to do for reducing the resources they require to run the service.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I understand that. You and I are decent human beings, but a lot of people are dicks. So the instance owners should be the ones active at protecting their resources.

    • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uploading directly uses server resources which are voluntarily provided, that’s why using external providers and just posting links instead is usually better.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s true, but there’s some pretty reasonably priced S3 compatible containers now. To the extent I’d only start getting concerned at the 1TB mark.

        Of course I also am not going to complain if people use hosting sites and prolong how long it takes to get to 1tb :p

  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, I remember when the imagur guy made a post saying hi everyone I made a site we can use for pictures on Reddit. How’ long ago was that?

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s kind of crazy how these popular services are always insistent on killing themselves off with these horrible changes.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those services are seldom profitable. Especially as they get larger, their costs rise. Meanwhile, imgur, as a service that provides embedded content, has little opportunity to make money off of their users. They rely on infinite growth and ever more people investing money into them to keep financially viable.

      But there is no infinite growth and imgur has reached its limits. Now they need to bind users to their platform and rely on ad revenue. So old content gets purged, along with nsfw content, in order to entice advertisers.

  • djflusso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any thoughts about uploading images straight to lemmy.world vs using these sites to host? Is either option vulnerable to takedowns?

    • LollerCorleone@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      Images could eat up the server resources of your instance. Using a third-party service reduces the burden on them.

      Anything that you don’t host yourself are vulnerable to takedowns. But as someone who has been using postimages.org for many years now, I have never had any such issue with them, and haven’t heard of anyone else facing them as well. The other three services I linked also have a good reputation as reliable services.

      • Wander@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        As an instance admin I gladly host user files.

        One thing to take into account is that images posted by an instanceA user on an instanceB community will still be hosted on instance A.

        So as long as an instance doesn’t host more users than it can handle it should be fine.

        • Dystopia@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          From what I understand reading this thread, if instanceA goes down, any images hosted there are lost, while the comments will still exist because they’re federated. You’re only shifting the responsibility of hosting the image from a site like imgur to the home instance of the poster.

          I guess it comes down to if you’re concerned about how long your home instance is going to be around for, use an external host, or see if/when account migrations are added if images move too (although they would also have to fix the src for wherever the image is now being hosted)

      • Kayn@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        A downside to hosting images externally is that these image hosts can go down before the Lemmy instance does, leaving many posts without context. One should keep this in mind when choosing where to upload their images.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lemmy instances have quite small size limits compared to other services. And all of them are vulnerable to DMCA takedowns as they have to comply with the laws of the host country, but unless you plan on hosting CSAM you are good with either choice.

      But all have a good track record for keeping images online without deleting.

      • crystal@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aren’t other file/image hosts just as vulnerable to DMCA takedowns? I mean, they have to comply with their host country’s law, too.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In theory, yes. In practice, no. E.g. Russia is known to ignore DMCA takedown requests and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve been looking for a service that uses IPFS to get a more distributed solution in place. Although you need an HTTP proxy for anyone that doesn’t have the plugin or use a browser with support built in. There’s a service called Pinata, but it only lets you upload 100 files for free

    • FistfulOfStars@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      IPFS (or similar tech) is the only sustainable solution for media hosting on federated platforms.

      Permanence is important - old posts with dead media links is bad for society IMO - but we can’t expect volunteer instance admins to be held responsible for something as complex and expensive as permanent media hosting.

      • RaumEnde@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        While somewhat correct it still needs someone hosting your data, even if it’s you.

        Slightly off-topic:

        I never get why Ipfs is using these false claims about “uploading” to the Ipfs and having it “permanently” stored. In reality it’s just Torrent, someone has to have the file - if no one has, there is no file. In theory one could make the same file available again in the future but all the hashing settings have to match with the previous or you’ll get a different reference hash.

      • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The hardest part will always be moderation. It will be incredibly difficult to prevent smut and CSAM propagating without people actively monitoring what content is being hosted. But even if you assume random people have the time and are ok with seeing and reporting/filtering out that content, you’ll still never combat advanced cryptographic steganography techniques; a picture of a flower might have content hidden inside it somehow that encodes the bad content in a way that you’ll never find it. On top of that, moderation is work that no one wants to do for random content they don’t care about, but without people hosting content they don’t care about, links will die too quickly to be useful. Imagine if you posted an image to a niche community, and then had to keep your system on for hours, days, or weeks, ready to seed it to the one lurker who happens across it, and then maybe they also seed it.

        tl;dr it’s a very difficult problem…but honestly maybe AI breakthroughs can help with it

  • Darren@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do any of these have the ability to link an album? I often put multiple photos together, and post the that link to my communities.

    • Mewtwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I just created a Catbox account since everyone in this thread has been mentioning it. It allows me to create an album after uploading images to my account and I can add a description. But I can’t customize the order the album lists the pictures or place a description on specific pictures.

      I just did this

      https://catbox.moe/c/rk6abk

      Edit: for some reason it’s acting like the link a a lemmy instance? It works if I paste it in my browser… Edit 2: okay thunder app and connect app consider the /c/a Lemmy page, while Voyager has no issue

      • PierreKanazawa@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        okay thunder app and connect app consider the /c/a Lemmy page

        Oops. I always wonder how to recognise federated services as domain names do not say much. How does Voyager avoid that issue?