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

Our plans for PeerTube v4

joinpeertube.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 174 posts

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#41

Post by extradesgo »

marcodiego wrote: post #27
CWuestefeld wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.

Yes, I'm not in the US. But I think I didn't express myself clearly. Actually, what I mean is more something along the lines: "people should be held accountable by what they spread". Things like defamation are punishable in the US, right?

No, not under criminal law. It requires a civil suit.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#42

Post by atat7024 »

onion2k wrote: post #32
anoncake wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to ask the same question to Email.

Are you suggesting that a significant use for email could be communication between white supremacists? It's probably less than 0.0001% of all emails sent. On the other hand, if PeerTube is used to host a lot of pro-facist video content made by racists that could be a problem for PeerTube. It's an existential threat to the technology. If governments and ISPs see it as predominantly used for that then they'll ban it. I…

You're going to crucify an emerging technology for being where edge groups congregate, even though that's that's been the MO of the Internet since BBS days?!

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#43

Post by dexterdog »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #15
CWuestefeld wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.

Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#44

Post by bluthru »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #15
CWuestefeld wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced Can I assume you're not in America? In the USA, "hate speech" is not, and cannot be, a crime. The 1st Amendment forbids content-based limitations on speech.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of restrictions on free speech before; the First Amendment is not absolute. It is not unthinkable that with changing society and changing judicial review, the USA too may one day find hate speech to be a crime.

>favour

Hello non-American. The Supreme Court has ruled that "hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment, because of court it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#45

Post by extradesgo »

marricks wrote: post #36
extradesgo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re intending to be sarcastic, you probably mean united front.

Looking at the definition I see united front actually fits the idea better! I did mean to be sarcastic and wrong though.

Ha!

Blending of conflicting ideologies implies compromise or trade-off, which would be a popular front.

In a united front, the groups do not merge or compromise. Ideologies and ultimate intentions remain pure, and the groups only collaborate in the name of overlapping interests.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#46

Post by edrxty »

haolez wrote: post #5

Random idea: we could create a .tube domain to disseminate the idea that YouTube doesn't need to be the only video platform around.

Create it and before opening it publicly, squat you.tube and make it randomly redirect to any other registered domain.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#47

Post by judge2020 »

edrxty wrote: post #46
haolez wrote: post #5

Random idea: we could create a .tube domain to disseminate the idea that YouTube doesn't need to be the only video platform around.

Create it and before opening it publicly, squat you.tube and make it randomly redirect to any other registered domain.

Would probably violate trademark law and icann would make you give it up. I guess if you go opennic or use a different alternative root they might not care about court-ordered domain forfeitures.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#48

Post by adkadskhj »

seriousquestion wrote: post #9
marcodiego wrote: post #6

Couple this news with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26804977 . We need not only decentralization and "openness". We need independence. People should be held accountable by lies and defamation they eventually spread but the possibility of publishing information or "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled by any government, company or market. Edit: replaced "Punishment for crimes like hate spe…

> Punishment for crimes like hate speech should be enforced > "personal media" should not be arbitrarily controlled This threw an exception, because "hate speech" is an arbitrary type. It has no objective definition. It is defined by whoever happens to be defining it.

Not that i agree with the GP comment, but isn't that exactly the point of courts?

Eg death threats and all sorts of illegal wording are inaccurate in the literal, programming sense. Humans (courts/etc) interpret and ultimately rule if a set of vague concepts is in violation.

If it wasn't for this capability it would be hilariously easy to avoid almost all repercussion from written/spoken word by just adding a dash of vagueness to the subject. Throw in a pinch of speaking in code and you'll never be charged for any crime, yay!

I loosely agree with you, but lets not pretend that english is even remotely as well defined as a programming language in all cases.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#49

Post by edrxty »

judge2020 wrote: post #47
edrxty wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Create it and before opening it publicly, squat you.tube and make it randomly redirect to any other registered domain.

Would probably violate trademark law and icann would make you give it up. I guess if you go opennic or use a different alternative root they might not care about court-ordered domain forfeitures.

You could probably get away with never releasing it and just leave it null.

Re: Our plans for PeerTube v4

#50

Post by colordrops »

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #12

I am very hopeful for Peertube and their project, since I'm currently partaking in hosting a large video website for otherwise content too controversial for mainstream platforms like Youtube. (Political content if you were wondering, but I won't indulge what kind) This takes back control to creators in such a way that essentially only domain registrars will be able to dictate what content may stay alive on the intern…

And if they start taking down domains without due process, parallel DNS systems will arise.
Post reply on HN