5 ms·

Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer cont

Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer content sharing platform. Our mission is to put people and free speech first. It is free to join, create and upload your own content to share with others. Feel free to read more about it in their FAQ. I really want to stop using YouTube and use this instead. I hope they make it. https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/

the8472 9y ago
Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers. Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.
vidarh 9y ago
The big challenge with this is to solve the problem that almost everyone has a "one step too far" when it comes to what type of content we are willing to tolerate and/or what type of content we may get in trouble for hosting even if it is not intentional. That makes it tricky to for solutions that "put people and free speech first" to succeed, because they've basically painted a giant target on themselves, and it easily makes even a lot of people that sympathise in principle worried about the bits and pieces that steps over their personal line. Figuring out a reasonable solution to this, I think, will be essential to get more widespread adoptions of platforms like these.
- the8472 9y ago
  I think the problem is the expectation of people that someone else do the filtering for them. I.e. "I don't want to see this kind of content" leads to "someone else should remove it from all the sites I visit". Which obviously leads to conflicting requirements once you have more than one person and those people disagree on what they want to see and don't want to see. The only reasonable solution is to host everything, modulo requirements by law, and give users the tools to locally filter out content en masse. In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentally encountering child porn is to clear your cache.
  - djrogers 9y ago
    > I.e. "I don't want to see this kind of content" leads to "someone else should remove it from all the sites I visit". I don’t think that’s always the mindset. Isn’t it reasonable for people to have the mindset of “I want to go to sites that don’t have content that I find objectionable”? This way websites can decide which group of people they want to cater to.
    - the8472 9y ago
      The context of the discussion is large websites acting as platforms. Their users are bound to have conflicting views about what's "objectionable". So when the moderation mechanism is deletion instead of letting users just filter then the website has to preferentially treat one group instead of being a platform for everyone.
      - chii 9y ago
        But the deeper issue is that done people don't want certain content to even exist, and won't be satisfied with just a filter (even thought they can't tell the difference between filter and deletion).
  - averagewall 9y ago
    I don't think Youtube censors extremist content because "I" don't want to see it. It's because "I" don't want anyone else to see it! There's no use me filtering my own videos if my goal is to limit what other people see.
    - chii 9y ago
      This is at the heart of the issue: should platforms bow down and allow some users to dictate what others are allowed to see? Or should a platform remain neutral against anything (which means potential back lash)?
  - vidarh 9y ago
    The problem on these distributed platforms is not filtering what people see, but filtering what people host or allow to transit their network connections. > In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentally encountering child porn is to clear your cache. But that's the thing: You don't skip it. You spread it to every user. They both have to deal with whether or not they are willing to host the material and whether or not it is even legal for them. How many of us sympathise with the idea of running a Tor exit node, for example, but avoid it because we're worried about the consequences? These platforms will always struggle with this unless they provide ways for people to feel secure that the content that is hosted on their machines is content they don't find too offensive, and/or that traffic that transit their networks is not content they find too offensive. Consider e.g. darknet efforts like cjdns which are basically worthless because their solution to this was to require people find "neighbours" they can convince to let them connect. Which basically opens the door to campaigns to have groups you disapprove of disconnected by harassing their neighbours and their neighbours neighbours, just the same as you can go to network providers on the "open" internet.
rmc 9y ago
Warning: it has this channel https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitepower/ https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitepower/ which is full of anti-semitic nazi stuff. It's visible on the front page listed above. You may or may not want to visit that link. Channels aren't open to everyone, so it looks like they have manually allowed that?

the8472 9y ago

Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers. Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.

vidarh 9y ago

The big challenge with this is to solve the problem that almost everyone has a "one step too far" when it comes to what type of content we are willing to tolerate and/or what type of content we may get in trouble for hosting even if it is not intentional. That makes it tricky to for solutions that "put people and free speech first" to succeed, because they've basically painted a giant target on themselves, and it easily makes even a lot of people that sympathise in principle worried about the bits and pieces that steps over their personal line. Figuring out a reasonable solution to this, I think, will be essential to get more widespread adoptions of platforms like these.

the8472 9y ago
I think the problem is the expectation of people that someone else do the filtering for them. I.e. "I don't want to see this kind of content" leads to "someone else should remove it from all the sites I visit". Which obviously leads to conflicting requirements once you have more than one person and those people disagree on what they want to see and don't want to see. The only reasonable solution is to host everything, modulo requirements by law, and give users the tools to locally filter out content en masse. In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentally encountering child porn is to clear your cache.
- djrogers 9y ago
  > I.e. "I don't want to see this kind of content" leads to "someone else should remove it from all the sites I visit". I don’t think that’s always the mindset. Isn’t it reasonable for people to have the mindset of “I want to go to sites that don’t have content that I find objectionable”? This way websites can decide which group of people they want to cater to.
  - the8472 9y ago
    The context of the discussion is large websites acting as platforms. Their users are bound to have conflicting views about what's "objectionable". So when the moderation mechanism is deletion instead of letting users just filter then the website has to preferentially treat one group instead of being a platform for everyone.
    - chii 9y ago
      But the deeper issue is that done people don't want certain content to even exist, and won't be satisfied with just a filter (even thought they can't tell the difference between filter and deletion).
- averagewall 9y ago
  I don't think Youtube censors extremist content because "I" don't want to see it. It's because "I" don't want anyone else to see it! There's no use me filtering my own videos if my goal is to limit what other people see.
  - chii 9y ago
    This is at the heart of the issue: should platforms bow down and allow some users to dictate what others are allowed to see? Or should a platform remain neutral against anything (which means potential back lash)?
- vidarh 9y ago
  The problem on these distributed platforms is not filtering what people see, but filtering what people host or allow to transit their network connections. > In a decentralized system you also skip the law requirements since you cannot enforce multiple incompatible jurisdictions at the platform level, individual users will be responsible for enforcing it on their own nodes, similar how all you can do when accidentally encountering child porn is to clear your cache. But that's the thing: You don't skip it. You spread it to every user. They both have to deal with whether or not they are willing to host the material and whether or not it is even legal for them. How many of us sympathise with the idea of running a Tor exit node, for example, but avoid it because we're worried about the consequences? These platforms will always struggle with this unless they provide ways for people to feel secure that the content that is hosted on their machines is content they don't find too offensive, and/or that traffic that transit their networks is not content they find too offensive. Consider e.g. darknet efforts like cjdns which are basically worthless because their solution to this was to require people find "neighbours" they can convince to let them connect. Which basically opens the door to campaigns to have groups you disapprove of disconnected by harassing their neighbours and their neighbours neighbours, just the same as you can go to network providers on the "open" internet.

rmc 9y ago

Warning: it has this channel https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitepower/ https://www.bitchute.com/channel/whitepower/ which is full of anti-semitic nazi stuff. It's visible on the front page listed above. You may or may not want to visit that link. Channels aren't open to everyone, so it looks like they have manually allowed that?