this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2940 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I used to like Odysee until I saw them clearly promote conspiracy theories and far-right, almost Nazi rhetoric on the homepage.
Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn't mean your centralized frontend can't be modified by you.
They never even made a single attempt to help others develop alternative frontends too, so the decentralization there was more akin to decentralization theater.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Did you mean can be modified? Or what does this have to do with Nazi rhetoric? Maybe you have a different idea about the word "frontend"?
Sorry if my wording was unclear, let me rephrase.
Odysee is the platform, the site, the frontend, and the company. LBRY was the backend, the blockchain-based system that actually stored the videos themselves.
Odysee was the main interface to interact with the videos stored on LBRY, to essentially act like YouTube, but the videos were technically available to anyone.
Odysee then used the justification that the backend was decentralized to say that they had to remain entirely neutral to any content on Odysee, because a decentralized system inherently cannot have its content censored by one party.
This ignored the fact that they could choose to modify which videos their frontend would show to users. They acted as if this was not possible, even though it was.
Thus, a decent YouTube alternative with some good creators on it refused to censor any nazi content that started making its way there because YouTube rightfully deplatformed its supporters, and let it infect the platform without doing anything to stop it, pretending as if they had no choice, while in reality, it just brought them more revenue.
It's a shame because the thing that kills alternative platforms is getting flooded with racists to the point that they drive everyone else out.
A lot of "free speech" platforms box themselves into a corner by declaring themselves "free speech" platforms while intending that to mean they won't ban users for mild wrongthink, but then white supremacists show up, and if they get banned then they start causing a massive shitstorm over the fact that the platform isn't truly supporting free speech. Then they drive out all the normal people who don't want to be associated with them and the platform is forced to shutdown.
Then you have morons like Tim Pool who will endlessly attack "free speech" platforms if they ban white supremacists.
Oh right, so you were talking about the content, that's not what I understood under "frontend". Thanks for clearing it up.
I don't have any experience with the platform, so I'm not in a position to judge their decisions, but it's always tricky when you present yourself as censor free. There's things you obviously don't want on your service, but if it falls within the legal realm, it is no longer a matter of "will we block Nazi material" but whether from that point onward you start taking a moral and political stance.
Things get incredibly tricky and cumbersome if you choose that route, not just from an administrative perspective but also technically. I can understand why the people who operate the platform would prefer to primarily use legality as a deciding factor, as not every ideological issue that you open yourself up to if you take the other route is as straightforward as fascism.
the ideal path would be to censor nazi stuff on their frontend and also support others making their own frontends. that way they're truly free speech, everyone can use the backend, but they don't promote the bad shit
This is exactly what they should have done, and one of the main reasons I got annoyed with them. There was one single public RPC endpoint for the LBRY blockchain that was publicly available. one. (and then it went down shortly after I found it)
Compared to other blockchain-based systems, with tons of free public RPCs (click on the arrow below Ethereum Mainnet), LBRY was absolutely terrible.
It meant there was almost no tooling or resources for any developers to start their own site, and essentially killed the very idea of doing so.
Compare that to something like Lemmy or Mastodon, where I've personally seen numerous different moderation policies on different instances, and Odysee just stopped feeling like a good alternative to YouTube.
Unfortunately that's one of the problems with a lot of alternative platforms.
You would think there'd be some decentralized video hosting thing popular with us Fediverse types but in practice they're all the low spots in the gutter in which the densest shit gathers. Most of the audience is on Youtube, and you only migrate to an alternative site if you've been banned from Youtube, and the folks who haven't been banned from Youtube don't tend to want to go stand next to the people who have so it's difficult for legitimate content creators to adopt those alternative platforms.
Dailymotion still exists and I think you can still upload there but I know of no "dailymotioners." Vimeo seems to have gone in a b2b direction, Twitch is mainly for live streaming, Tiktok succeeded where Vine failed, Nebula was some Youtubers starting their own Netflix with blackjack and hookers, Floatplane was LMG starting their own Netflix with blackjack and hookers, then you've got the several porn sites of varying dubiousness, and then down in the sump you've got the likes of LBRY and Odysee.
There are a few creators out there that publish multiple places. If it doesn't cost to publish, we could start encouraging more people to publish more places. The biggest problem is you do actually have a chance to get paid on Youtube. Most of the content worth watching is only doing it because they can make money
As if Youtube didn't promote conspiracy theories and almost Nazi rhetorics that serve the country it's based in. They do, which they don't call as such. Everything else they'll call conspiracy theories and propaganda.
I have no idea why you're being downvoted since you're 100% correct. I watch one video about gaming and YouTube's recommendations are all alt-right anti-feminist stuff with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.
Google surely knows enough about me to know I lean far-left but the algorithm is determined to feed me that slop.
I have no idea from a technical perspective if Odysee's algorithm is independent from or worse than YouTube's, but the criticism of YouTube is completely valid.
I have watched super progressive content on Youtube but also watched conservative content as well. It's possible there are a lot of progressives who also watch content from the other side so the algorithm pushes it.
that's why you should be logged out of Google and also delete your cookies periodically :) To reset the memory of Google
The thing is that I do want to have my subscriptions and favorite channels, and as long as UBO blocks ads, I haven't fully made the switch to a different front-end.
But it still bothers me that it serves me far-right, religious, and conspiracy theory content given that I've never once engaged with any of those topics.
They’re being downvoted because one platform being shitty doesn’t excuse another from it.
See: Tu Quoque
I didn't read the argument as saying one platform's behavior excuses the other. I saw it as saying that both are bad.
It certainly doesn't come across as a defense of either platform to say they're both infested by Nazis.
The difference between Odysee and YouTube is that YouTube doesn't claim to be a free speech platform that allows any possible statements on, and does often take down a lot of the harmful content. You only see the remainder, not the whole.
Odysee is quite small, and as such, could relatively easily moderate much more of the content on its platform, if they actually cared about doing so.
Odysee explicitly tries to allow as much speech as possible, claiming that they totally won't allow any bad content, while in reality, platforming LGBTQ+ misinformation, white nationalist rhetoric, anti-immigrant propaganda, etc.
All of those violate their Community Guidelines, by the way. But remember, it's guidelines, not actual policy as to what they remove.
Fox news seems to own YT's algorithm as far as I can tell.
Never a click from me, but 6 of the top 10 news vids every time.
So that makes odysee's behaviour OK?
Nothing. But mentioning it, don't forget to mention Youtube as well.
They never, ever stated the content on Odysee can't be removed; this is a misunderstanding spread by both people who don't use the platform, and even a lot who do use the platform but haven't properly done their research about how the platform works. They can't not have content removed since they are still legally required to remove illegal content, such as that which breaks copyright law, for example, pirates uploading full-length movies. Than when people find out that content can in fact be removed, they call Odysee a lair for something they never claimed.
Fair complaint.