Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PeerTube v3

framablog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: PeerTube v3

#91

Post by frogpelt »

germinalphrase wrote: post #68
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For those who support Trump, "deplatforming" is a major concern, as Trump has now lost access to essentially all of his base via social media. There are also a lot of people who are concerned about the dangerous precedent being set, regardless of whether they support this individual or not.

I have a hard time understanding why people feel like this is a new thing. If I start shouting obscenities during a live interview on ANY major media outlet, they will immediately kick me off. Is their refusal really the end of Free Speech?

Consider it from this perspective: Donald Trump was elected, not because he represented conservative people so well. Not even close.

He was elected because conservative opinions have been given so little credence versus liberal opinions on the biggest platforms that they turned to someone who would fight those platforms head on.

Liberal voices and opinions have been lauded, applauded, and promoted more than their fair share by most media and social media platforms for decades. That has created deep resentment in large areas of the country.

Donald Trump is a symptom of the disease that American politics and the associated media outlets have contracted. He is not the disease itself.

The way he is acting is not that surprising to anyone who pays attention to his personality. And the response in the last week by media and social media and big tech companies has also not been surprising, although I think they should have been more measured.

But the underlying problem still remains. De-platforming Donald Trump will not fix the broken and biased system. And every move and countermove escalates the resentment.

Re: PeerTube v3

#92

Post by marcinzm »

roenxi wrote: post #85
marcinzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops. YouTube started moderating it's content more because advertisers asked for it. No large advertiser wants to be shown next to a neo-nazi video.

About 33% of the US actively supported Trump's bid for presidency, and accounting for turnout probably a majority didn't care if he got back in. Accounting for business owners likely leaning free-market, it seems improbable that they mean 'Trump supporters' when they say 'we don't want to advertise with neo-nazis'. They probably mean literal neo-nazi. I don't mind if literal neo-nazi are moderated off a channel. Nobo…

Look at all the types of videos YouTube de-monetizes, do you think YouTube wants to pay for hosting and make no money on the videos? No, that's all the types of videos that large advertisers (which pay the most) have complained about over time.

Re: PeerTube v3

#93

Post by dmkolobov »

nyolfen wrote: post #89
marcinzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops. YouTube started moderating it's content more because advertisers asked for it. No large advertiser wants to be shown next to a neo-nazi video.

you have your eyes closed if you think they're only censoring the worst kinds of content, like nazis. videos have been taken down for e.g. criticizing lockdowns. it has moved well into policing acceptable thought.

A large portion of this kind of content results in people irresponsibly spreading a deadly disease while hospitals are turning dying people away in some areas of the country, e.g. LA.

I am happy to see content platforms policing thought in this manner!

Re: PeerTube v3

#94

Post by roenxi »

marcinzm wrote: post #92
roenxi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 33% of the US actively supported Trump's bid for presidency, and accounting for turnout probably a majority didn't care if he got back in. Accounting for business owners likely leaning free-market, it seems improbable that they mean 'Trump supporters' when they say 'we don't want to advertise with neo-nazis'. They probably mean literal neo-nazi. I don't mind if literal neo-nazi are moderated off a channel. Nobo…

Look at all the types of videos YouTube de-monetizes, do you think YouTube wants to pay for hosting and make no money on the videos? No, that's all the types of videos that large advertisers (which pay the most) have complained about over time.

Of course they want to, that is why they are doing it. They'd prefer to keep the network effects going because they know an exodus would undermine their for-pay videos.

If they weren't happy, they would delete the videos on demonetisation. They don't have to pay for hosting. They know these videos are drawing in a valuable audience.

Re: PeerTube v3

#95

Post by benatkin »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #8
Vaslo wrote: post #4

This seems extremely relevant given everything going on. Do we have to worry about the same deplatforming and data tracking as we see on other media sites? Asking because I just don’t know - I don’t want to hop over just to have the same problems.

So will PeerTube just become a tool for extremism? Or is that a feature? Are humans actually ready for the internet? I am not so sure. Just visited parler, and imagine a whole world filled with bat shit. Crazy, right?

Wouldn't having all speech be controlled by giant platforms be batshit?

It isn't anyone's job to rescue Parler. They're locked into a cloud provider, and that was their own doing. If they can't survive, tough kitty.

However, an open internet, with the ability to run apps outside of app stores (needed for new peer to peer stuff to thrive), and use of crypto would mean someone could make a Parler. Mastodon and Matrix have had major controversies.

Re: PeerTube v3

#96

Post by r00fus »

nyolfen wrote: post #89
marcinzm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops. YouTube started moderating it's content more because advertisers asked for it. No large advertiser wants to be shown next to a neo-nazi video.

you have your eyes closed if you think they're only censoring the worst kinds of content, like nazis. videos have been taken down for e.g. criticizing lockdowns. it has moved well into policing acceptable thought.

On the other hand I don’t let my kids watch YouTube (even using YT kids and with my account to bypass ads) because they don’t do enough moderation of extremist videos. A few clicks leads to a lot of provably false BS.

Re: PeerTube v3

#97

Post by therein »

marcinzm wrote: post #54
roenxi wrote: post #37

I like PeerTube, but the really important part of the puzzle is the advertiser network. What makes YouTube special is that Google takes care of the advertising side of things and makes it easy for people to monetise. If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops.

>If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops. YouTube started moderating it's content more because advertisers asked for it. No large advertiser wants to be shown next to a neo-nazi video.

I think this kind of thing is over-emphasized.

Most advertisers probably already understand that the person being exposed to their content for a brief moment isn't under the impression that the ad doesn't mean strong endorsement of the content by the advertiser.

Re: PeerTube v3

#98

Post by r00fus »

marcinzm wrote: post #56
tasogare wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Onboarding that guy on any alternative platform would be a huge marketing coverage and grow in userbase for the said platform. I wonder if a company will try to play this card.

The issue is that then a lot of very toxic people will go to that platform and there will be a lot of very toxic content. Then all the people who aren't toxic will leave the platform because they don't want to be subjected to that content. Then advertisers will leave because they don't want their brands associated with that content. Then app stores will drop the app because they don't want their brands associated wit…

So you’re saying the individual you’re discussing is truly radioactive? If so, for how long?

Re: PeerTube v3

#99

Post by wussboy »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #26
hug wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just in case this is a serious question, without editorialising, the following has happened in the past 48 hours: * Trump has been bannned from Twitter. * Trump has attempted to use the POTUS account, and had those tweets removed. * Trump has been removed from Facebook. * Trump has been banned from Twitch. * The Discord server for the_donald has been banned from Discord. * Parler has been removed from the Google Play…

> For those who support Trump, "deplatforming" is a major concern, as Trump has now lost access to essentially all of his base via social media. There are also a lot of people who are concerned about the dangerous precedent being set, regardless of whether they support this individual or not.

Preventing dangerous incitement to violence is in no way recent, not is what is happening now in any way new. The only difference between now and 200 years ago is the amount of damage that speech that is unconstrained by social norms can do. I get very frustrated with all this "Oh no, if we prevent this dangerous person from saying dangerous things our society will fall apart!" while it has been precisely this clamping down on dangerous speech throughout the last ten thousand years that allows us to live together at all.

Re: PeerTube v3

#100

Post by [deleted] »

dmkolobov wrote: post #93
nyolfen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have your eyes closed if you think they're only censoring the worst kinds of content, like nazis. videos have been taken down for e.g. criticizing lockdowns. it has moved well into policing acceptable thought.

A large portion of this kind of content results in people irresponsibly spreading a deadly disease while hospitals are turning dying people away in some areas of the country, e.g. LA. I am happy to see content platforms policing thought in this manner!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN