4 ms·

Intersting. But you can't say or won't say? Won't, fine by me. Can't, I'm already skeptical of anyone involved.

eximius 8y ago
Don't forget "shouldn't"
no1youknowz 8y ago
I can't because I'm really passionate about this and I'll end up going on a rant. :) But let me give you a glimpse of the scope involved. For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a moat around it: - Own Domain registrar - Independent Colo provider / Own infrastructure - Own Payment processor - Advertising networks / Own Ad Network for individuals - Content creators, that are free from brigading. - Company put into a trust, with a board of influential influencers abiding by an internet bill of rights. Currently no independent platform exists with the above and allows anyone irrespective of their voice or opinion to be heard and be supported by donation, merchandising sales or advertising revenue. You could say, they are green shoots in the form of d-tube, bitchute, steemit, but they are still very early in the process and do have a high surface area of attack. There's a lot wrong with the current system and I aim to fix that. >) Oh and I'm not at the beginning of the journey either. 3/4 of the 6 times I know how to implement. It's really all about making sure that it definitely is do-able and generates enough revenue year 1 to ensure it survives to year 3-5.
- mark_l_watson 8y ago
  That sounds good! Hopefully I will see the HN announcement when it is released.
- jasode 8y ago
  >For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a [moat (aka Own Ad Network)] around it: It looks like "free from censorship" and having an "ad network" are contradictory properties. If one invents an uncensored website e.g. "www.uncensorablecontent.com" -- that allows any content (including uncensorable child porn and uncensorable beheadings), advertisers like Pepsi and Toyota will avoid it. The site's freedom of speech ideals become radioactive to advertiser funding. Unless you're deliberately foregoing mainstream advertisers by intentional design. That's fine but that also means you're limited to niche advertisers which also means your content creators will have a smaller revenue pie to receive ad payments from. Those economics creates a feedback loop because the content creators making mainstream videos (e.g. harmless pop music videos or gardening tutorials) don't need the freedom properties of UncensorableContent.com and would just use a centralized site like Youtube because the mainstream advertisers are there and that's where the money is. Therefore, through the self-selection of certain content creators being restricted to outlets like UncensorableContent.com, it evolves to become a haven for unsavory content even if the architectural intention was to be a place for everybody's "good" content.
  - no1youknowz 8y ago
    I want the platform to be like cable television. 10000s of channels. If someone doesn't like a particular channel because they don't believe in the content. Simply block it and move on. If someone comes across a user in the comments, whose views they don't agree with. Simply block them too and them move on. What I would like to do, is put the agency back into the hands of the user. I don't want them to be coddled. I believe everyone is better by listening to viewpoints from those even if we don't agree with it. There's always something to be learned. When it comes to advertisers, well they are advertising on the channel. They are not necessarily supporting the platform. My wish would be, that once launched, going forward users understand that when Toyota sponsors a channel, they are sponsoring that user and adverting to that audience. They aren't sponsoring another user elsewhere which is banging on the table for Trump to build that wall 10ft higher. That said. In the beginning, I will be forgoing mainstream advertisers. It is my belief that they will eventually see the light. That the user has full agency and they can craft the platform to cater to their needs and what they want to watch. Finally, terrorism, child porn, revenge porn, nudity and all that nonsense will not be welcome on the platform. Look, the central tenant is for everyone to be welcome. Craft an audience on whatever they feel to be passionate and to be able to make a living. With no fear of being de-platformed because there is a minority that wishes to subdue another minority. I believe such censorship is a slippery slope. That's all.
    - 18pfsmt 8y ago
      Can you say more about the stack you are building? Are we talking open source? What language are you writing this in?
      - no1youknowz 8y ago
        Sure. It's completely open source. 1) VueJS/Bootstrap for the UI. 2) GoLang API for the UI and the backend MQ/Job workers. 3) VideoJS for the player. 4) Not sure about the DB Yet, either Postgres or Memsql. 5) SideKiq for the Job Queue. 6) Nats.io for the MQ. 7) Centrifugal/centrifuge for the real-time messaging layer. 8) Probably React/Vue Nativefor the mobile application. Whichever one works out best on mobile.
- jasonkostempski 8y ago
  That falls under won't, which is understandable. Can't implies someone is legally preventing you from talking about it.

Don't forget "shouldn't"

I can't because I'm really passionate about this and I'll end up going on a rant. :) But let me give you a glimpse of the scope involved. For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a moat around it: - Own Domain registrar - Independent Colo provider / Own infrastructure - Own Payment processor - Advertising networks / Own Ad Network for individuals - Content creators, that are free from brigading. - Company put into a trust, with a board of influential influencers abiding by an internet bill of rights. Currently no independent platform exists with the above and allows anyone irrespective of their voice or opinion to be heard and be supported by donation, merchandising sales or advertising revenue. You could say, they are green shoots in the form of d-tube, bitchute, steemit, but they are still very early in the process and do have a high surface area of attack. There's a lot wrong with the current system and I aim to fix that. >) Oh and I'm not at the beginning of the journey either. 3/4 of the 6 times I know how to implement. It's really all about making sure that it definitely is do-able and generates enough revenue year 1 to ensure it survives to year 3-5.

mark_l_watson 8y ago
That sounds good! Hopefully I will see the HN announcement when it is released.
jasode 8y ago
>For a system to be completely free from censorship, it needs to have a [moat (aka Own Ad Network)] around it: It looks like "free from censorship" and having an "ad network" are contradictory properties. If one invents an uncensored website e.g. "www.uncensorablecontent.com" -- that allows any content (including uncensorable child porn and uncensorable beheadings), advertisers like Pepsi and Toyota will avoid it. The site's freedom of speech ideals become radioactive to advertiser funding. Unless you're deliberately foregoing mainstream advertisers by intentional design. That's fine but that also means you're limited to niche advertisers which also means your content creators will have a smaller revenue pie to receive ad payments from. Those economics creates a feedback loop because the content creators making mainstream videos (e.g. harmless pop music videos or gardening tutorials) don't need the freedom properties of UncensorableContent.com and would just use a centralized site like Youtube because the mainstream advertisers are there and that's where the money is. Therefore, through the self-selection of certain content creators being restricted to outlets like UncensorableContent.com, it evolves to become a haven for unsavory content even if the architectural intention was to be a place for everybody's "good" content.
- no1youknowz 8y ago
  I want the platform to be like cable television. 10000s of channels. If someone doesn't like a particular channel because they don't believe in the content. Simply block it and move on. If someone comes across a user in the comments, whose views they don't agree with. Simply block them too and them move on. What I would like to do, is put the agency back into the hands of the user. I don't want them to be coddled. I believe everyone is better by listening to viewpoints from those even if we don't agree with it. There's always something to be learned. When it comes to advertisers, well they are advertising on the channel. They are not necessarily supporting the platform. My wish would be, that once launched, going forward users understand that when Toyota sponsors a channel, they are sponsoring that user and adverting to that audience. They aren't sponsoring another user elsewhere which is banging on the table for Trump to build that wall 10ft higher. That said. In the beginning, I will be forgoing mainstream advertisers. It is my belief that they will eventually see the light. That the user has full agency and they can craft the platform to cater to their needs and what they want to watch. Finally, terrorism, child porn, revenge porn, nudity and all that nonsense will not be welcome on the platform. Look, the central tenant is for everyone to be welcome. Craft an audience on whatever they feel to be passionate and to be able to make a living. With no fear of being de-platformed because there is a minority that wishes to subdue another minority. I believe such censorship is a slippery slope. That's all.
  - 18pfsmt 8y ago
    Can you say more about the stack you are building? Are we talking open source? What language are you writing this in?
    - no1youknowz 8y ago
      Sure. It's completely open source. 1) VueJS/Bootstrap for the UI. 2) GoLang API for the UI and the backend MQ/Job workers. 3) VideoJS for the player. 4) Not sure about the DB Yet, either Postgres or Memsql. 5) SideKiq for the Job Queue. 6) Nats.io for the MQ. 7) Centrifugal/centrifuge for the real-time messaging layer. 8) Probably React/Vue Nativefor the mobile application. Whichever one works out best on mobile.
jasonkostempski 8y ago
That falls under won't, which is understandable. Can't implies someone is legally preventing you from talking about it.