9 ms·

I work for LBRY inc, and am happy to answer any questions people have.

• whatever1 6y ago
  Search for the word “Jews” in your site.
  • core-questions 6y ago
    I see you've rediscovered the publisher vs. platform dichotomy! Those of us who believe in free speech understand that people will say things we don't like, and further understand that the sacrifice of ignoring content we dislike is worth it for the greater principle. I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative that doesn't result in censorship or end up having an unrealistically high moderation cost.
    • hengheng 6y ago
      I've never heard this type of speech at a bar when I asked why somebody wasn't shown the door. I guess they didn't have a greater principle. One core value that a platform could have is common decency, which is not the same as censorship, but it is given up even easier than what your argument calls free speech.
      • minkzilla 6y ago
        That’s because one bouncer can see everyone in the bar. I have heard this type of speech in regards to nations, aka a much larger scale.
      • seph-reed 6y ago
        Terrible metaphor. How do you suggest making a platform which allows good content while disallowing bad? Also, how do you expect to be able to define these things? Remember: every person you pay to moderate has to be able to discern good from bad in as little time as possible. Even less time than that.
        • smogcutter 6y ago
          Ironic argument to post on such a heavily moderated forum. Also kind of beside the point with regards to a site that seems to be intentionally designed as a safe harbor for venomous trash. Not quite the same thing as throwing up your hands over moderation being hard.
          • seph-reed 6y ago
            The trick with this forum (and IMO the only trick that really works) is narrow-bandwidth community. I have no idea how to apply this to a content hosting paradigm though. Not without spending a couple million dollars on bots who inevitably make mistakes.
      • giancarlostoro 6y ago
        A bar is private property that just so happens have the doors open for potential customers, whilst some things on the internet are public access, nobody is forcing you to go to any specific website if you don't want to, but at a privately owned bar you might not like someone chanting about politics or whatever the case may be, and this is established laws for platforms vs publishers in the USA. This is why a lot of people have issues with Google editorializing search results (check out Project Veritas on the matter) because they reach out into editor territory and out of just being a platform. Since somebody downvoted without providing references to their refutes here's an actual case about freedom of speech online which is the main one by the looks of it in regards to suppressing speech online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti... The burden of defamation is on the person not the website if anything, however, if someone posts anonymously who do you sue? The best a platform can do is delete their account. I've successfully had defamatory / false content about myself deleted from a platform in the past.
        • mwfunk 6y ago
          No, none of this applies to privately owned web sites. If anything, forcing them to act like utilities impinges on the speech of the platform owners. The Ben Shapiros of the world have desperately been trying to spin a different narrative though and they will jump through endless hoops and contradictions to do it. This is all just moderated-vs-unmoderated newsgroups/mailing lists/web sites all over again. There’s room for both. Nobody has a constitutional right to force YouTube or anyone else to host their content, or to have those companies shield them from criticism. If someone wants to argue that YouTube should be declared a public utility that is required to host everyone’s content no matter what, that’s totally understandable and they should make that argument instead. Otherwise they’re just asking for the government to mandate that YouTube, etc. are safe spaces where everything is permitted and no one is allowed to judge other people for what they say, including the company paying for the servers. Which is so totally counter to what those very same people seem to think about everything else that I’m surprised the hypocrisy and inconsistency doesn’t create a singularity or something. But here we are, in 2020, and AM-talk-radio types are demanding the government mandate safe spaces for them on privately owned platforms where they are shielded from consequences.
      • young_unixer 6y ago
        If a bar started kicking people out for what they say, then it would be a shitty bar, and not one I would like to visit.
        • Psychlist 6y ago
          Next time you're in a bar try explaining to the bouncer that they should be killed, violently, right now. I suspect you'll find out that whatever free speech rights your local jurisdiction grants you don't allow you to stay in the bar.
      • throwa2233 6y ago
        Common decency means do not question any historical or present narrative that is outside the comfort zone of even one person
    • revscat 6y ago
      Free speech absolutism is destructive. Facebook is an example of this. Climate change denialism is another. Holocaust denial is another.
      • core-questions 6y ago
        > Free speech absolutism is destructive. OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something? You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are limited to speech that poses a credible threat or incitement to violence, in context. None of the things you've mentioned are illegal to talk about, just like flat eartherism or any other pseudoscientific concept. Again, you can find it as distasteful as you like; but there's a clean and simple solution to the problem, which is a button with an X on it, at the top of your window. Consider clicking it?
        • ksenzee 6y ago
          > Who gets to decide what speech is allowed? In the public square? The courts. On a platform? That platform's owners decide. In fact, they have a moral obligation to monitor the speech they allow, because they're helping promulgate it.
          • cmrdporcupine 6y ago
            What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Platform owners making a decision to allow hate speech are letting hate speakers use an audience that the platform owner painstakingly helped build. That's just either idiocy, or being complicit.
            • glenstein 6y ago
              >What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service. Depending on which phase the moon is in, you'll hear defenders of hate speech alternate between saying (1) we shouldn't allow any efforts at moderating speech on platforms because it will make no difference,because people can just move to new platforms or create new platforms, or (2) mainstream platforms are de-facto public utilities and it's literal legal free speech that is infringed if they engage in moderation. I don't know how that contradiction is supposed to be reconciled, or what motivates the adoption of these conflicting views, but I suspect that (1) is motivated by a desire to prevent major platforms from engaging in any moderation because they support the speech that would be moderated and (2) is that arguments about "free speech" need to get around the private platform issue.
    • wlll 6y ago
      You're not impinging on the free speech of people when you push them off your platform, they are free to carry on spouting their repugnant shit if they want, it's just that they have to build their own site, or even just try talking to people on the street about it. What you are doing when you allow racism or xenophobia on your site is helping them promote it. There's a difference, and the fact that you have chosen to stand with those people doesn't put you in the free speech group, it puts you in the "I am a racist" group.
      • throwa2233 6y ago
        I consider myself fairly racist (recent development, ask me if you want to hear my point of view -- I'm sure you don't because you are morally superior and don't need to hear me out, right?) and to be honest, the #1 thing that sways people to my point of view is censorship on private platforms. In real life, I can calmly explain how intelligence is highly heritable, and usually I'll get a sort of "yeah, but we can't treat that as political reality" response. But when I say "I can't even mention that intelligence is highly heritable on Hacker News without getting banned", people are actually sympathetic! edit: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC4739500&blobtype=pdf https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC4739... > In the context of current concerns about replication in psychological science, we describe 10 findings from behavioral genetic research that have robustly replicated. These are ‘big’ findings, both in terms of effect size and potential impact on psychological science, such as linearly increasing heritability of intelligence from infancy (20%) through adulthood (60%). Four of our top-10 findings involve the environment, discoveries that could only have been found using genetically sensitive research designs. We also consider reasons specific to behavioral genetics that might explain why these findings replicate
      • userbinator 6y ago
        That's the classic "us vs them"/"if you're not with us you're against us" argument, and it's really the cause of the recent increase in divisiveness that is slowly destroying society.
        • wlll 6y ago
    • Gene_Parmesan 6y ago
      I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction. Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Hence, free speech. But nothing in the entirety of free speech, whether the legal notions or the philosophical notions, requires platforms to give that speech a place to live. The whole "marketplace of ideas" concept fundamentally works by having the community at large reject hateful speech. Free speech does not mean each instance of speech needs to be weighed and evaluated equally by the community. From a far more practical perspective, allowing this sort of thing onto your platform spells death for any content-platform startup. Seeing this sort of thing is going to immediately (a) drive sensible content consumers -- your actual users -- away from the platform, and (b) draw other hate speech creators to you like flies to shit. If that's what the platform wants to do, then nothing in the world is stopping them, but they will never gain mainstream success.
      • core-questions 6y ago
        > Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Cloudflare and domain registrar bans, payment processor bans and deplatforming, etc. would beg to differ.
        • wlll 6y ago
          You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar. You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and walk around the street with it on a pole. You're not having your free speech impeded by any of this, because refusing to carry someone elses speech isn't censorship, it's just that when you say things that are repulsive to people they won't want to help promote it. If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.
          • 6y ago
    • cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      The most mind boggling thing about your reply is the sentence "I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue" That's not what is happening here. That's not what the issue is. Hate speech doesn't boil down to "things I don't believe to be true." Typing "Jews" into these platforms and getting hate speech back isn't an issue of "oh dear, here are some untruths." It's hate and designed to create more hate. Which is why many platforms and many countries have a special category for it. You can disagree with that philosophically, fine. But you might try not being so flippant about it. Especially when the example here, anti-Semitism, is associated with the death of millions of people's loved ones.
      • throwa2233 6y ago
        I will be as flippant as I want because I had ancestors die in the Holodomor which was larger scale the Holocaust and was implemented by Jewish nationals from Russia. It is not hateful to defend yourself from people that hate you. It doesn't matter what you think of them, it matters what they think of you.
      • bobthechef 6y ago
        Define "hate speech". You never do, you merely assert that there is such a thing, that we know what it is, that it is legitimate, that it can be and probably that it should be legislated and enforced. I'm asking a serious question because we're witnessing the suppression of discussion that some groups don't like. It's an empty phrase. And in the absence of meaning, guess who decides what to classify as hate speech and thus which groups have a voice and which don't? Thrasymachus in Plato's "Republic" has an answer: the powerful. Since we're on the subject, anti-Semitism is one of those accusations that is used liberally to attack anyone that organizations like the ADL don't like. For example, if you compare the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis to apartheid, if you criticize Judaism in a way that resembles what Catholics are subjected to on a regular basis, or some tendency in Jewish culture, then suddenly you're an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jewish ethnicity, a hatred of a person who is Jewish because of his ethnicity. It is not a critical stance toward questions of culture, religion, or politics. But the legitimate definition of the term has been expanded by political hucksters into what Norman Finkelstein (whose parents are survivors) calls the Holocaust industry, where a grave crime is exploited to silence criticism and bully people into silence on matters that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. So we have a textbook example of how "hate speech" is deployed to silence political opposition and stifle debate. There are, of course, other examples. Mind you, I do not include things like libel and calls for violence in hate speech. Those kinds of things are already legislated and penalized as they should be. Too many things, like pornography, have been falsely defended by appealing to "free speech". What I'm talking about is the use of this insidious term by powerful groups to silence those they don't like, and then pretending like that's not what's happening. It is that simple.
    • duskwuff 6y ago
      If your platform has become a host for hateful extremist content, you have a problem you need to fix. Shrugging your shoulders and calling it free speech is a lazy non-answer -- it's only going to get worse if it's left unchecked.
  • gfody 6y ago
    profit motive brings out the worst in people
  • throwa2233 6y ago
    Neo gasping for air, unplugging the plug from his neck, looking around... Where am I? This can't be the real world, the old world is the real world...
  • mundo 6y ago
    Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? Choice A leads to the problem this thread is discussing. Choice B leads to the problem you're describing. Personally I would prefer a choice C, a platform that deletes stuff I don't like and nothing else, but I don't think that's on offer. The closest thing available is platforms that delete stuff that offends their target demographic, as determined by a conference room full of SV middle-management types, i.e. youtube, which we already have and which isn't all that great. I'm not trying to snark you, I don't like the content on lbry either. But sometimes it seems like HN's consensus opinion is that censorship is terrible, and also that censorship-resistant platforms are terrible.
    • Barrin92 6y ago
      >Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube. However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of effort and resources, and requires not outsourcing the entire process to a shoddy half-working automated system.
      • mundo 6y ago
        You don't have to choose. There are anti-Semitic books in libraries, yet libraries are not overrun with them. The problem here is not that lbry endorses or embraces bigots, it's that the non-censoring platforms are new/wonky/unpopular enough that no one uses them except people who are banned elsewhere.
        • sudosysgen 6y ago
          Libraries do not algoritmically promote antisemitic content.
        • Barrin92 6y ago
          Library content is strongly curated. You don't self-publish to a library, so in the sense that anti-semitic works exist in libraries, they do so because of historical relevance. If you're a guy who advocates the supremacy of the white race on lbry, I challenge you to make it into a library
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• username3 6y ago
  Do you share the list of illegal or banned videos on Odysee or Lbry.tv?
• joobus 6y ago
  I found your site a few weeks ago after some creators I like kept mentioning they were posting there as well. I really like your site and keep up the good work! I use it instead of youtube whenever possible.
• im3w1l 6y ago
  I have never heard of lbry before, but I went to your site and was positively surprised. I looked into same gaming content and found what I was looking for. Playback was smooth and high quality. For my question I wonder how it compares to the other services that deadalus mentioned?
  • seanyesmunt 6y ago
    Nice. Checkout https://odysee.com/$/gaming https://odysee.com/$/gaming for more curated gaming content. Odysee is another (more centralized) frontend built on top of the LBRY protocol. Here is a good link comparing other sites https://lbry.com/faq/different-bitchute https://lbry.com/faq/different-bitchute
• dang 6y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24571741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24571741.