[HN Gopher] Our plans for PeerTube v4
___________________________________________________________________
Our plans for PeerTube v4
Author : rapnie
Score : 213 points
Date : 2021-04-14 13:59 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (joinpeertube.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (joinpeertube.org)
| rijoja wrote:
| Would it be possible to set up some form of CDN. I.e. a service
| where you could submit torrent links so that "peertubers" could
| pool their resources somehow, or if you would like to support
| certain user by making sure that they get the bandwidth?
|
| So I am thinking of nodes that wouldn't actually host the
| websites but rather only would accept bittorrent URIs and then
| seeding them. To make sure that the ecosystem doesn't fail.
|
| What would the economics behind this look like? So in short what
| server providers provide the best deal for just bandwidth. I
| suppose that this mostly would require bandwidth. The second
| priority would be storage space of course.
|
| So what seems to be a potential problem with peertube is that if
| you put up a node and then if you get popular you might run into
| a bandwidth cap with your VPS. The average user probably wouldn't
| be interested or have the know how to do this, but I believe it
| would suffice that if there is a certain percentage of people who
| have interest in keeping peertube online it might be doable.
| Jukg7e3AFyskdj wrote:
| A similar project https://github.com/VeemsHQ/veems
| remirk wrote:
| That project doesn't do federation, according to the issue
| tracker. Federation is the thing that makes PeerTube so
| special.
| riffic wrote:
| the ActivityPub protocol is PeerTube's special sauce,
| allowing interoperability with many other projects in the
| ecosystem.
|
| https://github.com/BasixKOR/awesome-activitypub#services
|
| edit: a comment about PeerTube itself, be sure to check out
| probably its most interesting installation (TILvids), by
| which interesting means you'll be watching a lot of their
| content for the edutainment:
|
| https://tilvids.com/
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| 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 internet. (And naturally that each
| to their own get to federate to their own liking) At the moment
| domain registrars have been staying on what is IMO the correct
| stance of content allowance, requiring more or less police
| warrants to take down content. In fact I'm hopeful enough for
| this project that I've considered spending some time to get stuck
| in the development enough that I could even contribute pull
| requests or helpful issues to the tracker.
|
| I would like to see a world instead where all channels on Youtube
| were their own "Peertubes" instead. Youtube/Google have really
| let consumers and creators down as it is right now, which in a
| way is natural, since they only really have allegiance to their
| sponsors and advertisers.
| vangelis wrote:
| One of the first instances I stumbled upon was this guy. Your
| mileage may vary.
|
| https://videos.martinezperspective.org/videos/trending?a-sta...
| lupire wrote:
| If good-content people don't use peertube, then only bad-
| content people will use peertube.
|
| You don't need to browse all the instances, you can stick to
| ones recommended by curators you trust.
|
| Joinpeertube should do better about how it promotes instances
| for newbies.
| [deleted]
| colordrops wrote:
| And if they start taking down domains without due process,
| parallel DNS systems will arise.
| hossbeast wrote:
| Handshake, for example.
| amelius wrote:
| > only domain registrars will be able to dictate what content
| may stay alive on the internet
|
| Can't/doesn't PeerTube work with IP-addresses directly?
| ralusek wrote:
| > I won't indulge what kind
|
| There's only one kind considered too controversial for
| mainstream.
| anoncake wrote:
| Conservative-Libertarian Anarcho-Marxist Fascism?
| varispeed wrote:
| These days as long as you promise financial benefits for
| about 10-30% of population, anything goes. That's why
| you've got so many populist parties around Europe winning
| elections. People don't care much as long as they get paid,
| can buy food, pay rent, and spend rest of the day browsing
| internet or getting drunk in front of Netflix.
| marricks wrote:
| The only true popular front! /s
| extradesgo wrote:
| If you're intending to be sarcastic, you probably mean
| _united_ front.
| marricks wrote:
| Looking at the definition I see united front actually
| fits the idea better! I did mean to be sarcastic and
| wrong though.
| extradesgo wrote:
| 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.
| JeremyBanks wrote:
| Coordination of armed insurrection against the United States?
|
| Accusations of Democratic pedophile rings to distract from
| the known Republican pedophiles in Congress?
|
| Lies about the election rigging to justify overtly racist
| voter suppression?
| ralusek wrote:
| Depends on who's doing it.
|
| > Coordination of armed insurrection against the United
| States?
|
| Coordinating burning down Minneapolis police station is
| okay. Bombing Portland Federal Courthouse is okay. I'm
| afraid you haven't quite captured it yet, but close.
|
| > Lies about the election rigging to justify overtly racist
| voter suppression?
|
| No, speaking for 4 years about Russian collusion rigging
| the election was allowed on mainstream platforms.
|
| I'm afraid you'll still need to be more specific.
| marricks wrote:
| I mean, this comment could give you some clues [to what their
| leanings are and what content could be hosted*]:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26610522
|
| *Added context since parent was flagged
| stirfish wrote:
| >For all I've seen "non-white non-male" is generally given
| priority in all kinds of areas, certainly in start-up
| interest. It's considered "hip" to associate with these
| "non-white non-male" groups, irregardless of their actual
| performance in whatever area they were prioritized. (To a
| certain extent at least, they can't be completely
| nonperforming) Being able to show that you have included
| these groups in whatever way your organization works, gives
| you advantages in press situations foremost, but also in
| other ways such as meeting arbitrary quotas set by higher-
| ups and HR dept.s in your organization.
|
| I'm guessing...videos leaked from inside factory farms.
| [deleted]
| goodpoint wrote:
| Guess again:
|
| > 1) Non-white non-males are given less ability to grow
| in the "STEM/Entrepreneurship" fields as students and/or
| children by society.
|
| > 2) White men are able to outperform those other groups
| by some inherent quality.
|
| > Nevertheless, 1) seems to be partially disproved
|
| Unless I misread, the claim that is being made here is
| "white males are inherently superior"
| raarts wrote:
| To me it's more likely due to not being able to see
| reality is more nuanced than 2 options.
| marricks wrote:
| That was my take!
|
| I think stirfish was being sarcastic about factory farms
| and probably reached the same (scary) conclusion.
| raarts wrote:
| Which one are you referring to? Because I can think of a few.
| zaptidizap wrote:
| You would be surpriced
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| I got to see this first hand recently. Tesla has a rabid fan
| base that try to take down any negative information. Somebody
| posted a video on YouTube criticizing Tesla's full self driving
| system and using short clips from other channels that are
| clearly fair use. Users spammed DMCA takedown requests and
| YouTube removed the video. Other users published it to Vimeo,
| Veoh, and a few other sites but those all got taken down as
| well, basically killing the video's spread. The only ones still
| up are PeerTube and a split version, although I'm not sure if
| it would disappear if that host chooses to remove it.
|
| It just surprised me how effective this method of censorship
| was and I wonder how often it happens with more important
| topics.
|
| Context:
| https://twitter.com/BS__Exposed/status/1321535914036748288?s...
| https://twitter.com/icapulet/status/1375232839415906304?s=20
| https://twitter.com/FinanceLancelot/status/13752898727562731...
| [deleted]
| sschueller wrote:
| Well, I posted a copy on my PeerTube instance and without a
| court order it ain't getting deleted.
| ruph123 wrote:
| Do you care to share a link then?
| sschueller wrote:
| https://troll.tv/videos/watch/54bc7bd0-8691-4359-aa7d-dc5
| 148...
| gabythenerd wrote:
| Thanks for hosting it. The video is very well done and
| rises valid points, but it's going to be difficult for it
| to gain traction fighting against the rabid fanbase.
| Wonder what could be a solution for this type of
| censorship.
| scohesc wrote:
| Decentralization of platforms away from the larger
| content aggregators and towards smaller, more tight-knit,
| niche communities.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Have they tried just putting the video on a VPS VM and a
| single static web page with a synopsis of the video? Unless
| there are tens of thousands of simultaneous viewers, one
| should not even need a CDN. Happy to test this to see if
| things have changed. If there are tens of thousands of
| simultaneous viewers, there are about 35 or so decent CDN
| vendors out there. Some of them are quite affordable.
| neverminder wrote:
| 2010-2015 was the golden age of YouTube. Adpocalypse
| effectively killed it as a neutral platform and now even mildly
| controversial videos get demonetized and/or removed. I
| therefore consider Peertube as essiantial as Wikipedia and
| Openstreetmap. I hope it becomes mainstream alternative to
| YouTube.
| lupire wrote:
| Does Wikipedia allow controversial content? It is fiercely
| editorially controlled, and proudly so.
| varispeed wrote:
| How this platform is going to work with the coming content
| filters and link tax in the EU?
| [deleted]
| Deukhoofd wrote:
| Not as sexy as the v3 roadmap, but good to see them iterating and
| improving on what's already there!
| analyte123 wrote:
| I enjoyed the "managing expectations" section here. It reminded
| me that even as an average programmer contributing to the project
| directly (via PRs, triaging, or just testing / running an
| instance) is going to be more valuable than donating $10 or
| whatever to a project like this.
| gaws wrote:
| Question to PeerTube: What are you doing to curb the ever-growing
| number of white supremacists using your platform?
| loceng wrote:
| There should be freedom of speech, however that needs to be
| balanced with the ability for centralized services - or trust
| networks - to form and allowed to moderate, without a
| centralized single government entity dictating what may be said
| or not to avoid potential tyranny - nor to force all
| organizations/platforms to be required to share everything
| [minus whatever "hate" list is deemed inappropriate by the
| government].
|
| I do agree with Twitter, AWS, deplatforming who they want: why
| would you purposefully allow a bad actor (or misguided people)
| to use your technology/weapons? If they're not sophisticated
| enough or want to piggyback on the technology of people who
| don't believe you should be allowed to freely incite violence,
| then those bad actors will learn a lesson - as they seemed to -
| and then they will have to rally and align with those who do
| fully support a lack of moderation, etc. There are other
| problems like a lack of data and network portability laws, and
| PeerTube to some degree is a bridge for that, but the laws
| still need to be in place as a canary - if they ever happen to
| get removed.
|
| The broader issue is societal - and that our institutions have
| been weakened by a number of factors including regulatory
| capture by industrial complexes, tied with the duopoly -
| leading to policy that kills off and suffocates the majority of
| people instead of supporting them to be able to thrive. Racism,
| as an example, could be argued as a multi-generational health
| whereby narratives, role modelling, overlaid onto circumstances
| of excess suffering, excess stress, that prime the racism to
| continue to perpetuate. It's also a sign of a lack of deep,
| genuine community and interconnectedness; we have politicians
| and the mainstream media and the vast majority, if not all,
| global brands constantly trying to manipulate us - and the
| whole ad industry enabling little "mom and pop shops" from
| being able to join in on the manipulate to sell things to
| consumers, buying attention for little to no effort -
| undeserved, unearned attention.
|
| It's possible that if Trump hadn't been deplatformed then he
| could have further incited violence, more easily, and quickly
| enough; Parler and other forums did at least temporarily
| organize at least the most avid. It's possible too - though
| based on the Capitol incursion security forces weren't prepared
| and/or lacking integrity - that security forces would have been
| prepared to counter whatever portion of disenfranchised (and
| misguided) Trump supporters would be ready to escalate further
| violence. But the important part to all of it is that it was a
| wakeup call - that Trump got voted in because who slid by the
| control mechanisms and corridors the duopoly had managed to
| evolve and strengthen over the last X decades - that there are
| 80+ million people who aren't happy and are prone to lies,
| propaganda coming from and being reenforced by these various
| complexes.
|
| In short conclusion, Andrew Yang's core policies seem like the
| new foundation necessary to counter the majority, if not all,
| of the problems that lead to this current state of America;
| Presidential candidate, now running for Mayor of NYC.
| rijoja wrote:
| The thing about free speech is that it is not there to protect
| popular opinion but rather unpopular opinions. If it was there
| to protect popular opinions there wouldn't really be a need for
| it would it?
| zackees wrote:
| The supremacist is the one that interferes with other people's
| freedom of speech.
|
| Aka look in the mirror.
| dexterdog wrote:
| I think the answer is that they will allow them to use the
| platform which is equally open to anybody wishing to debate
| what they are saying. I know it's hip to consider everybody who
| does not parrot your opinions as a "white supremacist" but if
| you really look at the people that are in the movement you will
| find that they are miniscule in numbers and, for the most part,
| pretty foolish and easily ignored.
| betwixthewires wrote:
| 1) peertube is not a platform, 2) nothing, hopefully. If you
| don't like it don't watch it. There are 0 wholesome reasons to
| have a hard on for dictating to people what they can or can't
| say.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You know, I've heard almost all white supremacists are using
| NTP these days too...
| atat7024 wrote:
| And Microsoft Windows.
| coolspot wrote:
| This accusation is over the top.
| johnsolo1701 wrote:
| This is disingenuous. NTP is not a platform to spread
| destructive hate speech.
| argvargc wrote:
| I read this kind of complaint, but frequent most of the
| services concerned and have never seen a single white-
| supremacist. I see open discourse much the same as HN.
|
| The few times I've visited any of the 'chans however, it's been
| quite different - but curiously I don't see the same people
| making these complaints mentioning them.
| zeta0134 wrote:
| I would say that if those members are hosting _on_ a PeerTube
| controlled instance, then perhaps it is a moderation issue. If
| those members are hosting their own instance that federates?
| Well, then I think the tool is working as designed. Similar to
| Mastodon, federation will probably need some controls for
| flagging external servers as sensitive so users /instance
| admins can choose to avoid that content if they wish. That'll
| slightly fragment the market and frustrate content indexing,
| but... ehh, I think some market fragmentation is preferable to
| one central authority that not everyone agrees with.
|
| One of the fundamental goals of free software is to enable its
| use by all people, even and especially people you do not like.
| That's not a problem for PeerTube to solve, it is a problem for
| society at large to address within itself.
|
| To frame this another way: think of the criminal organizations
| which spin up a web server somewhere and install Apache on it
| to host their illicit content and advertise their services. Is
| Apache somehow to blame? No, of course not, _the criminals
| are._ The same logic applies here; PeerTube, as a sharing
| platform, is technically able to share any data, including hate
| speech and other objectionable content. As an unbiased tool,
| that 's a feature not a bug.
| anoncake wrote:
| I would like to ask the same question to Email.
| theamk wrote:
| Email is purely point to point though, it cannot be used to
| discover new content. The mailing lists exist, but they are
| separate entities, not related to email providers or email
| protocols.
|
| In contrast, https://joinpeertube.org/ recommends videos on
| front page, and you can find offensive (to some) videos in 2
| clicks.
| onion2k wrote:
| 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. If more legitimate users see it
| being used for that then they'll stop peering video content
| and it'll become much less useful. PeerTube will live or die
| by the network effect it needs to be effective. Guarding
| against the "wrong" users, or at least marketing it so that
| more of the "right" users join, is essential. Nothing about
| that is a judgement on the content or the users; it's the
| simple reality of developing technology in a society full of
| different opinions.
| atat7024 wrote:
| 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?!
| remexre wrote:
| Some technologies (e.g. Secure Scuttlebutt) have the
| ability for subgroups to exist without aggressively
| recommending content to every user, as an inherent
| property of their design; I think "should Peertube adopt
| some aspects of these designs" is a valid question.
| gaws wrote:
| Elaborate.
| anoncake wrote:
| Question to Email: What are you doing to curb the ever-
| growing number of white supremacists using your platform?
| gaws wrote:
| Your initial response was confusing. You should've just
| said: "Email them your question," or something to that
| extent.
|
| Regardless, I get what you mean.
| jdasdf wrote:
| Why do they have to curb anything?
| marcodiego wrote:
| From https://framablog.org/2021/01/07/peertube-v3-its-a-live-a-
| li... :
|
| "PeerTube is not a platform, it is a software."
| mariusor wrote:
| Why do you feel like the developers of a project _need_ to do
| something to prevent people from using it. What exactly can
| they do in your opinion?
|
| (PS. I'm genuinely asking, I would appreciate an honest reply)
| [deleted]
| tekromancr wrote:
| PeerTube isn't a platform, tho. It's software and a
| corresponding protocol. It's akin to asking Microsoft why their
| operating system allows people to view csa content.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Is there a way to fund (donate) development?
| Jhsto wrote:
| The donate button on the front page takes you here:
| https://framasoft.org/en/#soutenir
| haolez wrote:
| Random idea: we could create a .tube domain to disseminate the
| idea that YouTube doesn't need to be the only video platform
| around.
| analyte123 wrote:
| This already exists, e.g. invidious.tube (YouTube proxy
| instance) or wago.tube (PeerTube instance).
| edrxty wrote:
| Create it and before opening it publicly, squat you.tube and
| make it randomly redirect to any other registered domain.
| bberenberg wrote:
| It was registered in 2016 by MarkMonitor. My guess is that
| YouTube already owns it.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| Not if what you show isn't the primary market of YouTube.
| edrxty wrote:
| You could probably get away with never releasing it and
| just leave it null.
| haolez wrote:
| Or simply hand you.tube to YouTube. Why not? :)
| edrxty wrote:
| Where's the fun in that
| drvdevd wrote:
| YouTube using you.tube would lend credence to the rest of the
| .tube TLD actually.
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is already a gtld: https://icannwiki.org/.tube
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/creating_new_tlds
| IshKebab wrote:
| Can someone explain the point of federating PeerTube. Their site
| doesn't really explain it, and it seems like you still need to
| create an account on every instance you want to use (if you want
| to comment on/rate videos).
|
| How is it different from lots of independent sites, with RSS
| feeds for each channel?
| sschueller wrote:
| You only need one account on any instance and you can
| rate/comment on any video in the federated network. However
| there are instances that don't follow each other and for those
| you would need a separate account.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Surely that's most instances? I don't see why the Blender
| instance would follow the Extinction Rebellion instance for
| example?
|
| And doesn't that make it an N^2 problem? Does every instance
| have to follow every other instance to make this work?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| Actually, with v3, you can follow "any" peertube channel or
| account regardless of whether your instance does the same
| or not. Earlier this was only possible with a
| mastodon/pleroma account only. Now your peertube user
| account in instance "a" can follow any channel anywhere in
| the fediverse.
|
| This is like you want to follow some channel from
| tilvids.com but dont want to follow the entire instance.
| amelius wrote:
| What I don't understand is why they don't broaden the scope and
| work more like IPFS, with a thin shell for displaying video
| data.
| gloriousternary wrote:
| Isn't that more or less the idea behind LBRY?
| rijoja wrote:
| Yeah I think so. Instinctively I do believe that this would
| be the most natural development. However I thought that
| federated social networks where kind of cool so maybe this
| is a better idea.
|
| I do believe I tried to sign up for LBRY but I don't know
| if it really took up.
|
| Might it be that LBRY simply doesn't scale or that there is
| some network effect that causes it not to work unless there
| are some specific conditions.
| dazaidesu wrote:
| nope lbry uses their own custom torrent-like protocol on
| top of their own fork of bitcoin with their own weird
| python lbry daemon which communicates with a javascript
| frontend which is pretty much completely centralized in the
| browser version. Even the desktop version relies on
| centralized features like comments system.
| marcodiego wrote:
| 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 speech should be
| enforced" by "People should be held accountable by lies and
| defamation they eventually spread"
| blasphemer1234 wrote:
| Explain how hate speech laws are different from blasphemy laws
| and why they should be enforced but blasphemy shouldn't be
| illegal. I'll wait.
| [deleted]
| seriousquestion wrote:
| > 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.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| 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.
| jdasdf wrote:
| Offloading the problem solving to courts doesn't fix the
| issue, it just removes your involvement.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| I wasn't saying it does, i'm saying _we already have to
| do that_. Ie, this isn't a new problem. It's a well
| understood problem, because language is not concrete nor
| so well defined as to be always explicit.
| Covzire wrote:
| The activists entrenched in Silicon Valley know better than
| the peasants or the courts.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| Well i use the term courts loosely here, as it is besides
| my point - my point was simply that humans _already_
| interpret word as allowed or not.
|
| We do not allow all english that isn't strictly defined
| as bad, i thought. I can threaten you in ways that will
| get me in trouble but are not, by themselves, a threat.
| English is not that simple.
|
| So my point is merely that it seems to be the precedent
| is already set for humans to moderate human english. It
| is not a programming language to be parsed and verified.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| _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.
| marcodiego wrote:
| 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?
| extradesgo wrote:
| No, not under criminal law. It requires a civil suit.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| Also, in the USA, truth is an absolute defense to a
| defamation claim. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff
| to prove that the speaker was wrong, and further, in most
| cases, that the speaker should have known that it was
| wrong.
|
| People like to talk about "defamation", but in America
| the bar is so high that it's only rarely applicable.
| TylerE wrote:
| Go yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and see how you do in
| court.
| the_rectifier wrote:
| A death threat against a whole ethnicity is illegal and in no
| way considered protected speech, and same goes for libel and
| threats to individuals.
|
| And this is by design.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| 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.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Hate speech being a crime is not the problem. The power of
| the arbiter of what defines hate speech is.
| claudiawerner wrote:
| It's also unclear to me why that, in turn, is a problem.
| There are several fuzzy areas in American free speech law
| as it stands, and arguably most people are already happy
| to allow (and encourage) regulation in other important
| areas of life, from medical/food regulation to warranty
| regulations, to electrical safety regulations, to
| frequency band regulations. The 'power of the arbiter'
| there is almost never brought up as a problem, despite
| the fact that this immense power can have very real
| consequences.
|
| If a democratically-elected government can be trusted (by
| the populace who influence the laws) to regulate what you
| can sell and what you can transmit in the airwaves, to
| regulate the minimum amount you can pay people, to
| regulate the age at which someone can be employed, etc. -
| why shouldn't the same government, subject to the same
| safeguards against misregulation, also have the ability
| to regulate this portion of speech too?
|
| This is more of a devil's advocate argument than
| anything, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
| bityard wrote:
| In China, "hate speech" includes anything that is
| critical of the government. I'm very happy that the U.S.
| has a very high bar for free speech, otherwise we would
| have been in a very bad spot all throughout the previous
| presidential administration.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| Yes. In india criticizing the government lands you in
| soup for "destroying the social fabric of the country"
| and "against the interests of the nation".
|
| Smh
| bluthru wrote:
| >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...
| d0100 wrote:
| In all decentralized solutions I've seen, they always seem to
| effectively become roundabout centralized solutions. No matter
| how "decentralized" something is, cost is the great centralizer:
| you can always be excluded either by the cost of running your
| decentralized hub or by network effects of being blacklisted in
| free "decentralized" centralized servers
|
| I think that the real decentralized solutions can only happen
| when the cost of "I'm going to build my own with blackjack and
| hookers" is free or at least until the price is embedable into
| "usual" costs, like if your phone could become your
| decentralized, always-available hub
| raarts wrote:
| So, 10 -20 years. Prices will have come down enough for every
| household to host ALL their own data in their router. And offer
| interested parties API access. And host distributed social
| platforms.
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Running a server from your home violates the terms of service
| of many ISPs (they want you to upgrade to a more expensive
| business plan for that). I'm not sure that is going to change
| in 10-20 years. Nor do I think router storage space is going
| to get significantly larger in the next decade, at least not
| in terms of being able to host large videos.
| google234123 wrote:
| The choice to maintain 80 projects and not grow beyond 10
| employees is puzzling to me. Those two decisions seem
| antithetical to each other. 80 projects is too many regardless
| aftbit wrote:
| Wow only one developer working on PeerTube and not even full
| time. No way will that level of effort be able to challenge any
| of the incumbents.
| sschueller wrote:
| You are welcome to help. I have very little time but managed
| to get a working android client running and published:
| https://github.com/sschueller/peertube-android
| analognoise wrote:
| Has this line of thinking ever actually convinced even one
| person?
|
| It's why FOSS can't make serious inroads in a lot of
| domains. Like 20 years ago I was convinced we'd all never
| be paying for Word, but here we are, 20 years later, still
| buying Word.
| lupire wrote:
| We are buying Word?
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| The fact that anything at all happens for $0 is amazing.
| It's hard to find half-decent volunteer opportunities in
| general.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Word does exactly what it says on the tin and doesnt
| steal your data. Facebook/google on the other hand...
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I was convinced we'd all never be paying for Word, but
| here we are, 20 years later, still buying Word.
|
| Inertia has long lasting effects.
| remram wrote:
| How many people work on YouTube, Vimeo, ... the platforms
| themselves, as opposed to promotion, monetization algorithms,
| marketing, etc? PeerTube actually works really well, and as
| long as communities come together to help with
| support/promotion/... I don't see why it couldn't "challenge
| any of the incumbents" even with only one developer on staff.
| fallat wrote:
| It isn't about challenging anything.
|
| It's about a libre alternative.
|
| Does the apple challenge the orange? They are both fruits!
| anamexis wrote:
| As a peer-to-peer service, its existence depends on uptake,
| and as a video service, uptake of PeerTube is a challenge
| to YouTube.
| lupire wrote:
| You can take up both.
| wazoox wrote:
| They explicitly want to say small, and they plan to phase out
| many projects, in the hope that others will carry on.
| edhelas wrote:
| Welcome to the Free Software movement. I invite you to check
| how the GitHub page of some core contributors of some projects.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I'm not particularly productive really, but seeing a few
| people I interact with pumping out open source PRs, and doing
| releases, all while (say) being the CTO of a company boggles
| the mind
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-14 23:00 UTC)