https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysee
Too much of a Nazi bar problem or a decent YouTube alternative? Thinly veiled American capitalism or respectable if not entirely unproblematic attempt at disturbing the monopoly?
Yes I am very knowingly and purposefully asking how “we” feel about it.
I’m fine with civil discourse, even with some unsavory opinions. Not so fine with people spreading blatant misinformation and propaganda. There needs to be decent moderation for this, which as I understand, Odysee seems to fail at.
As @[email protected] is pointing out, commitment to (absolute) free speech tends to attract Nazis. And by Nazis I mean, actual, literal Nazis, not just people who don’t agree with me on soylent being a decent meal replacement.
Also, lets never forget that (absolute) free speech would also cover allowing “theoretical” discussion on how to manipulate, groom and kidnap children for certain purposes etc. How to “theoretically” build bombs. How to “theoretically” drug and kill people etc. You might not be persecuted for having these “theoretical” discussions, which is fine but I think it’s healthy for any online space to remove such topics.
Yeah, and? You think those things shouldn’t’ be available?
If someone does police work on those things, should that information not be available to the public as it inform the public?
You are basically claiming some forms of knowledge are too dangerous for people to know. Also, as soon as you start dictating what is ‘misinformation’ you are creating the problem where knowledge and truth are defined by a central authority, which comes with it’s own systematic problems. The people in power of these censorship could easily decide that anti-Nazi rhetoric is misinformation as much as they could decide that Nazi-rehtoric is.
There is no free lunch. Information is free and it’s dangerous, or it’s suppressed, and that’s dangerous as well.
I am a former teacher and academic. I taught philosophy, and plenty of people I have met think philosophy is evil and hateful and terrible and shouldn’t exist. I think it’s great and wonderful. Which of us should have our views censored and suppressed? Socrates was viewed as spreading misinformation, and sentenced to death for it. Do you think his works are misinformation?
That’s a lot of logical fallacy from someone who claims to have been teaching philosophy.
Moderating blatant misinformation or bomb-making instructions does not inevitably lead to censoring valid political dissent. There is also a significant functional difference between Abstract Ideas (Socrates’ questioning of virtue) and Instructional Violations (blueprints for violence).
Equating moderating a privately run online space to making someone drink hemlock by the way of a state execution is a hell of a reach.
Nope. Never said that. I said “You might not be persecuted for having these “theoretical” discussions, which is fine…”.
Who decides what misinformation and propaganda is? For example, you think that Soylent is a decent meal replacement and that talking about it is a harmless debate to have, but I’m of the opinion that it is actually very harmful to your health in the long-term and really shouldn’t be advocated for in any way. (I’m serious, btw, this isn’t rhetorical)
Who decides on the internet which of us is correct?
There’s a difference between saying “I think X, and Here’s Why: Proof” and “YOU SHOULD NEVER CONSUME X IT WILL KILL YOU”