[mundo]

Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? Choice A leads to the problem this thread is discussing. Choice B leads to the problem you're describing.

Personally I would prefer a choice C, a platform that deletes stuff I don't like and nothing else, but I don't think that's on offer. The closest thing available is platforms that delete stuff that offends their target demographic, as determined by a conference room full of SV middle-management types, i.e. youtube, which we already have and which isn't all that great.

I'm not trying to snark you, I don't like the content on lbry either. But sometimes it seems like HN's consensus opinion is that censorship is terrible, and also that censorship-resistant platforms are terrible.

[Barrin92]

>Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't?

If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube.

However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of effort and resources, and requires not outsourcing the entire process to a shoddy half-working automated system.

[mundo]

You don't have to choose. There are anti-Semitic books in libraries, yet libraries are not overrun with them. The problem here is not that lbry endorses or embraces bigots, it's that the non-censoring platforms are new/wonky/unpopular enough that no one uses them except people who are banned elsewhere.

[Barrin92]

Library content is strongly curated. You don't self-publish to a library, so in the sense that anti-semitic works exist in libraries, they do so because of historical relevance.

If you're a guy who advocates the supremacy of the white race on lbry, I challenge you to make it into a library

[sudosysgen]

Libraries do not algoritmically promote antisemitic content.

[raxxorrax]

As someone whose skull would get measured again, please don't use tangential topics to justify censorship. It isn't anti-semitism that will get censored, it will be directed towards any form of dissident. Jews or minorities were never suppressed because there was too much freedom of speech or too much free media.

If the internet gets censored in the name of anti-semitism it would certainly not decrease animosity. Furthermore the blind crackdown on "disinformation" only increased reach of right leaning parties. The result should be observable since there is now enough empirical evidence. Trying the same strategy over and over might not be too prudent.

For some people a trimmed garden might be preferable and that is completely fine. But I don't think that is true for everyone. And there are enough alternatives, you can just watch TV or select another channel.

Stop your paternalism by pretending everyone gets influence because some YouTube videos don't fit your taste.

[Barrin92]

>it will be directed towards any form of dissident.

no it won't, this is just the typical American freakout. I'm German, here anti-semitism and hate speech are not only not propagated by private platforms (which is not censorship by the way), but banned (which is censorship). Our right wing party is diminished and unlike the US, we're not governed by complete lunatics.

There is no automatic mechanism by which stopping hate-speech somehow stops 'any form of dissent' in a democratic state of law and I'm tired of hearing the same argument again and again without any evidence for it. The US is alone among all democratic nations on this planet in their tolerance of bigotry. The UK, the oldest democracy on this planet, does not tolerate any of it either.

[raxxorrax]

I am German too and we have a clear national trauma regarding these issues that should be plain to see and it should not serve as a template for policing speech on an international network.

I don't know if you remember, but we managed to actually create a second dictatorship after WW2 and also gave far left agitators a partial fault for collapsing Weimar. Not that the assassinations that came for their leadership wasn't cowardly and their opposition completely reactionary.

The US also stands out as being actually pretty solid on democracy and a main factor we can enjoy it today too.

And yes, the right got much stronger as criticism on immigration for example was declared to be nationalistic, while left leaning groups were actively mixing up refugees and immigrants to serve business interests. Of course the result is predictable.

You aren't allowed to call anyone a Nazi in Germany, that can have legal repercussions. It often has not because there is a cultural understanding. I think that fact would be a big surprise to many people advocating speech policies like they are implemented in Germany. And don't tell me there aren't staunch crackdowns on demonstrations if they stand in the way of interests. There is enough stuff to do and with more freedom of speech, we would prosper even more.

> Our right wing party is diminished

That should actually have been the argument 10 years ago.

[themacguffinman]

Google tries its best to obfuscate YouTube's independent profitability (believed to be obfuscated because it's not actually profitable) but a few years back Bloomberg reported on an insider source that YouTube barely breaks even. Human moderators at the scale of YouTube is, quite frankly, a pipe dream. Automation is the only viable solution at the scale of YouTube.

[whatever1]

Is it too much to ask for a platform in 2020 to not serve nazi propaganda? Specially after we spent a lot of blood to get rid of it in the first place when we left it unchecked.