3 ms·

>Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with networ

>Fundamentally i think the solution is competitors. This was a much easier position to take when the web did not just have a few social media giants with network effects, but still: if youtube becomes to dranicon, start a new website. The tools to stream video (albeit not at scale) are just an apt-get away. I agree. I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website. We need decentralization. But at the same time more and more often I also see these same concerns raised with decentralized networks (going beyond standard practices like blocking and preventing federation with instances), and that gets me worried.

JCharante 6y ago
Decentralization of hosting responsibilities would certainly help bring down costs which is usually what makes it hard to make a competing hosting site. Then again any popular website _is_ going to need to go beyond standard protocol practices and try to censor certain illegal content. We could just change our culture to be satisfied with 720p content and use traditional websites that don't use p2p tech. Like, we could all just start using bilibili.com or some other chinese competitors instead of youtube.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Does bilibili.com have less censorship than Youtube?
jonathankoren 6y ago
The market provides though. There are are tons of sites for alternative and niche content, and new sites come up all the time. Complaining that you don’t have a ready made audience is pretty weak. You need to hustle for this stuff. People used to xerox and give away zines for an audience. As the Pirate Bay founder said recently[0], it’s embarrassing how easily people are giving up. It’s almost as if they don’t want to actually put the stuff out there, but rather be held up as martyrs. Pirate Bay and SciHub are still up, and have multiple billion dollar corporations actively gunning for them socially, legally, and extra legally. It can be done. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-th...
- seanp2k2 6y ago
  This. I believe that the problem has more to do with most users relying on platforms that are fundamentally advertising companies, and content that doesn’t go well next to an ad gets removed because it becomes a direct threat to revenue. Video sites exist which show very graphic violence, among other things not allowed on YouTube. They’ve been around for years. The issue, I guess, is that they tend to run ads for sketchy business, as they’re the only ones willing to put their name next to that content. The problem IMO isn’t so much that free speech is in jeopardy as the financial incentives of the incumbents are not aligned to support some of the things people want to say. It can be done, people are just being lazy instead of creative.
  - jonathankoren 6y ago
    Well, that’s the thing with being ostracized. Reputable people don’t want anything to do with you, and so you’re left with only the disreputable ones. It’s like there’s a whole generation of engineers that don’t realize that you can actually buy a computer instead of just rent someone else’s.
miguelmota 6y ago
There's always talk about decentralizing content platforms but these decentralized non-blockchain social network and messaging protocols have existed for years: - Scuttlebutt - GNUnet - Secureshare - Fereenet - ZeroNet - Retroshare - Diaspora - Mastadon - Matrix - Cabal Decentralized platforms put more responsibility on the user (key management, account recovery, content hosting, etc) which is unlikely to get mass adoption from mainstream users unless the decentralized platform is as easy to use as twitter.
- emptyparadise 6y ago
  They exist, but I'm worried that they can't break out because of network effects and lock in by the big players. What would be a good way to make these platforms mainstream? Would you support some sort of a mandatory requirement to federate for the big players? Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies. But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?
    - emptyparadise 6y ago
      If mainstream platforms were federated, you could move to a third instance that would communicate both with the big instance and the banned instance. Hell, you could even host your own instance and still be able to talk to people on the big social network. That's the missing piece that would make those "you don't have to use that website" arguments valid since it would greatly lower the cost of moving away from one social media website to another.
- swirepe 6y ago
  For anyone scrolling past this list, I had a lot of fun with Retroshare. It's like the Napster we never had, but with gardening books instead of music.
bilbo0s 6y ago
I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website Then you're in luck, YouTube is not the only video website. It's not even the biggest. Some video formats it can't even compete in because competitors are so far and away superior. I think you really mean that YouTube is a popular site. But it is certainly not the site going by site size. That would be FB. Not the most engaging either with snapchat and tik tok out there. It's certainly better than the other "also rans" like daily motion though. (Actually, now I think about it, I'm not even sure I would say it is necessarily "better" than DM. Maybe a better phrase would be "seems to be more popular"?)

JCharante 6y ago

Decentralization of hosting responsibilities would certainly help bring down costs which is usually what makes it hard to make a competing hosting site. Then again any popular website _is_ going to need to go beyond standard protocol practices and try to censor certain illegal content. We could just change our culture to be satisfied with 720p content and use traditional websites that don't use p2p tech. Like, we could all just start using bilibili.com or some other chinese competitors instead of youtube.

Thorrez 6y ago
Does bilibili.com have less censorship than Youtube?

jonathankoren 6y ago

The market provides though. There are are tons of sites for alternative and niche content, and new sites come up all the time. Complaining that you don’t have a ready made audience is pretty weak. You need to hustle for this stuff. People used to xerox and give away zines for an audience. As the Pirate Bay founder said recently[0], it’s embarrassing how easily people are giving up. It’s almost as if they don’t want to actually put the stuff out there, but rather be held up as martyrs. Pirate Bay and SciHub are still up, and have multiple billion dollar corporations actively gunning for them socially, legally, and extra legally. It can be done. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-th...

seanp2k2 6y ago
This. I believe that the problem has more to do with most users relying on platforms that are fundamentally advertising companies, and content that doesn’t go well next to an ad gets removed because it becomes a direct threat to revenue. Video sites exist which show very graphic violence, among other things not allowed on YouTube. They’ve been around for years. The issue, I guess, is that they tend to run ads for sketchy business, as they’re the only ones willing to put their name next to that content. The problem IMO isn’t so much that free speech is in jeopardy as the financial incentives of the incumbents are not aligned to support some of the things people want to say. It can be done, people are just being lazy instead of creative.
- jonathankoren 6y ago
  Well, that’s the thing with being ostracized. Reputable people don’t want anything to do with you, and so you’re left with only the disreputable ones. It’s like there’s a whole generation of engineers that don’t realize that you can actually buy a computer instead of just rent someone else’s.

miguelmota 6y ago

There's always talk about decentralizing content platforms but these decentralized non-blockchain social network and messaging protocols have existed for years: - Scuttlebutt - GNUnet - Secureshare - Fereenet - ZeroNet - Retroshare - Diaspora - Mastadon - Matrix - Cabal Decentralized platforms put more responsibility on the user (key management, account recovery, content hosting, etc) which is unlikely to get mass adoption from mainstream users unless the decentralized platform is as easy to use as twitter.

emptyparadise 6y ago
They exist, but I'm worried that they can't break out because of network effects and lock in by the big players. What would be a good way to make these platforms mainstream? Would you support some sort of a mandatory requirement to federate for the big players? Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies.
- krapp 6y ago
  >Of course, they would still be able to refuse to talk to instances that violate their own policies. But isn't that ability exactly what many people consider a violation of free speech on mainstream social media platforms, only applies to accounts rather than instances?
  - emptyparadise 6y ago
    If mainstream platforms were federated, you could move to a third instance that would communicate both with the big instance and the banned instance. Hell, you could even host your own instance and still be able to talk to people on the big social network. That's the missing piece that would make those "you don't have to use that website" arguments valid since it would greatly lower the cost of moving away from one social media website to another.
swirepe 6y ago
For anyone scrolling past this list, I had a lot of fun with Retroshare. It's like the Napster we never had, but with gardening books instead of music.

bilbo0s 6y ago

I wouldn't have a problem with YouTube doing anything if YouTube wasn't the video website Then you're in luck, YouTube is not the only video website. It's not even the biggest. Some video formats it can't even compete in because competitors are so far and away superior. I think you really mean that YouTube is a popular site. But it is certainly not the site going by site size. That would be FB. Not the most engaging either with snapchat and tik tok out there. It's certainly better than the other "also rans" like daily motion though. (Actually, now I think about it, I'm not even sure I would say it is necessarily "better" than DM. Maybe a better phrase would be "seems to be more popular"?)