4 ms·

The problem with any platform that bills itself as "uncensorable" is that it will always attract the people that everyone else wants to keep as far away from th

The problem with any platform that bills itself as "uncensorable" is that it will always attract the people that everyone else wants to keep as far away from them as possible. The repulsion people feel for those "deplorables", for lack of a better term, easily and automatically transfers to any platform that appears to tolerate them. For this type of platform to succeed it must focus on self-replication rather than too-big-to-fail uncensorability, propagating through a hydra effect that makes it easy to clone and re-spin when major hubs get brought down. This is basically what happened with BitTorrent. The trackers and indexes come and go, as whenever one obtains too much prominence the hammer comes down, but the core platform remains and it's reasonably easy for any interested party to pick up the pieces. If someone really cared, they'd run the most blase service on top of such technology and actively kick off anyone slightly controversial. As they obtained mainstream acceptance, they'd be able to focus on developing the resiliency and portability of the underlying technology. With some work into ensuring this tech becomes known and depended upon primarily for its association with positive things, associations with undesirables can be written off as an unintended side effect, but the ultimate outcome would still be free publication without requiring the control or approval of any breed of censorious supervisor. Not unlike the internet itself, really.

jstanley 8y ago
> If someone really cared, they'd run the most blase service on top of such technology and actively kick off anyone slightly controversial. What's the appeal to users of a more inconvenient version of YouTube that has even more draconian moderation policies? The appeal of BitChute is precisely its lack of censorship.
Yetanfou 8y ago
> If someone really cared, they'd run the most blase service on top of such technology and actively kick off anyone slightly controversial. You'd first have to define controversial, a difficult task when dealing with the 'net: * Communism - fine in Sweden, frowned upon in former Soviet satellite states * Marihuana - forbidden in Sweden, allowed in Canada and parts of the US, tolerated in the Netherlands * Women in revealing clothing - fine in western Europe, forbidden in islamic countries (for a recent example see [1]) * Antisemitism - forbidden in most of western Europe, daily fare on TV in many islamic countries * ... This list goes on, where do you draw the line? It would end up being a very bland service when everyone who is even slightly controversial is kicked off. So bland, actually, that the service would never obtain mainstream acceptance. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/egyptian-actress-charged-obscene-act-wearing-revealing-dress/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/egyptian-actress... - not exactly revealing to 'western' standards, enough for 5 years in prison according to the Egyptian prosecutor
- odessacubbage 8y ago
  maybe a good compromise would be to base frontpage content on regional broadcast standards as that seems to be a pretty reliable measure for what is considered acceptable and then simply relegate the other content within it's own 'after dark' category, available to registered users. this is essentially how we handled things back in the era of video stores and it still seems applicable imo; keep the content, just bring back the curtain.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    This just moves the problem, it does not get rid of it. You'd still have to draw a line somewhere or you'd be just as lambasted - if not more so - by the ravenous hordes of Twitter etc: "odessacubbage.video hides nazis / commies / porn / jihadis / furries / whathavenots behind a smokescreen, get him!". They'll be calling your advertisers, scream murder at your registrar, boycott your hosting company, petition the government to do an inquiry and do all those other things the hordes do to quiet a dissenting voice. Those Twitter hordes did not exist in the days of video stores...

jstanley 8y ago

> If someone really cared, they'd run the most blase service on top of such technology and actively kick off anyone slightly controversial. What's the appeal to users of a more inconvenient version of YouTube that has even more draconian moderation policies? The appeal of BitChute is precisely its lack of censorship.

Yetanfou 8y ago

> If someone really cared, they'd run the most blase service on top of such technology and actively kick off anyone slightly controversial. You'd first have to define controversial, a difficult task when dealing with the 'net: * Communism - fine in Sweden, frowned upon in former Soviet satellite states * Marihuana - forbidden in Sweden, allowed in Canada and parts of the US, tolerated in the Netherlands * Women in revealing clothing - fine in western Europe, forbidden in islamic countries (for a recent example see [1]) * Antisemitism - forbidden in most of western Europe, daily fare on TV in many islamic countries * ... This list goes on, where do you draw the line? It would end up being a very bland service when everyone who is even slightly controversial is kicked off. So bland, actually, that the service would never obtain mainstream acceptance. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/egyptian-actress-charged-obscene-act-wearing-revealing-dress/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/egyptian-actress... - not exactly revealing to 'western' standards, enough for 5 years in prison according to the Egyptian prosecutor

odessacubbage 8y ago
maybe a good compromise would be to base frontpage content on regional broadcast standards as that seems to be a pretty reliable measure for what is considered acceptable and then simply relegate the other content within it's own 'after dark' category, available to registered users. this is essentially how we handled things back in the era of video stores and it still seems applicable imo; keep the content, just bring back the curtain.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  This just moves the problem, it does not get rid of it. You'd still have to draw a line somewhere or you'd be just as lambasted - if not more so - by the ravenous hordes of Twitter etc: "odessacubbage.video hides nazis / commies / porn / jihadis / furries / whathavenots behind a smokescreen, get him!". They'll be calling your advertisers, scream murder at your registrar, boycott your hosting company, petition the government to do an inquiry and do all those other things the hordes do to quiet a dissenting voice. Those Twitter hordes did not exist in the days of video stores...