When your article gets published to IPFS, the hash of the contents of the article becomes the name of the file. If one character gets added or removed the hash name changes; therefore, making it impossible to censor.
If a government were to try to block the nofilter.org domain, you can still access the site and the content via hundreds of IPFS gateways around the world as well as through #IPFS directly by downloading the ipfs companion browser extension or by using the Brave browser which natively supports the IPFS protocol.
Here's the same article but hosted on NoFILTER (IPFS) - https://nofilter.org/#/0xae48565bfb998f7cc7855e910345f5b801a...
That's illegal.
Beyond that, IPFS is a joke. It's hovered in toy status for years, devoid of the core features it needs to justify its existence (a way to motivate people to host besides the goodness of their hearts, a DNS replacement that's not laughable, a simple and stable interface etc). But even if IPFS was everything it claims to be, using it for something like this is laughable:
1. There is no security in IPFS. It's a content mirroring technology. If you're hosting something illegal, the authorities can find you just fine.
2. IPFS is entirely voluntary. Mirrors can opt out of mirroring things they don't want to host. What are people going to opt out of most? Controversial content. Oh yeah, you can host "controversial" content of the type a teenager things is controversial. But anything actually hot is going to get shit-canned before you can blink.
Overall, IPFS, and anything built on it, is either absurd over-engineering or absurd under-engineering. If you wanna mirror bland, non-hot stuff, just mirror it in the usual ways. You don't need all this cyber-punk larping cloak-and-dagger shit. Nobody cares. And if they DO care? IPFS ain't gonna save you.
Adherents to this style of free speech decry their de-platforming by "big tech" which doesn't want to endorse their toxicity (partly because dysfunctional societies are bad for business and partly because their targeted customers may speak with their wallets).
The acolytes' standard reaction in response to this violation of their right to be awful is "who gets to choose which speech is acceptable?" as if we don't otherwise have a functioning society, social contract, and laws.
Other people get to choose. That's who. Their right to free speech includes a non-obligation to regurgitate your speech. Don't want to be "censored"? Then, don't pretend you have no idea what anti-social behavior is and don't be awful to other people.
Otherwise expect that you're free to talk, but no one's obligated to listen.
For those who don't agree with this, then tell you what: pick something absolutely and near universally abhorrent, say sexual abuse of children, and make the right to lobby for its legitimacy your rallying cry. Use it as the example of speech you intend to allow because "who should be the arbiter?"
Until you're willing to stake your beliefs (or project, etc.) on that, no one should buy what you're selling. Because then it becomes immediately obvious that what you're really lobbying for is a narrow, but vocal group of people whose ideas you likely agree with, but whose speech you view as recently restricted.
It's funny because if you're going to indulge in fallacy to get your point across, at least appeal to the right authority. Only problem with that is it's pretty hard to find an authority that doesn't believe in some form of the harm principle. The closest I can think of is John Stuart Mill, who said, quote:
"Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..."
Which is along the lines of the views pitched here... and Mill _invented_ the harm principle!
I do smile a lot. The alternative is a sinking feeling when I read sites like the one linked here that I personally feel like wouldn't exist if the creators embraced a little more empathy and understanding of natural rights.
The one thing that sticks out to me as a 'flaw' in this app is how it is marketed. It might be better to market it under a 'normal' name as a great blogging app, which, by the way, is uncensorable, etc.
That might make it seem like a good alternative for the general public rather than just a safe haven for marginalized voices.
That's a great question. Free speech doesn't mean lawlessness. There are many exceptions listed in the US constitution and those can be pursued by authorities to the degree they navigate IPFS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
For starters, we deliberately made a conscience decision not to make it easy to include photos or videos in content. We also made a decision not to create a general feed where all content is accessible.
So instead of censoring some photos and videos through moderation, you decided to censor all photos and videos.
It sounds like you want to comply with US law, but US law requires censorship of some speech: libelous claims, copyrighted works, incitement to violence, etc. Why comply with some US law and not all of it?
fight content creators, not distributors.
> password dumps
change your passwords often. Probably folks will do it more if they see new password dumps published daily.
> revenge porn etc etc?
the sooner people realize that the majority of adult humans on this planet had sex at some point of their life, the better.
However, these mediums are more frequently used to promote conspiracy theories, like the ones anti vaxxers spread and only lead to more covid victims, brainwashing leading to Q-anon types that have recently stormed the US Capitol, IS recruitment PR, CP etc. Oh and the video starts with the deplatforming of President Trump, a former head of state with a trolling habit, as if this was a net loss for the rest of us? Promoting your app with this type of content, plus the name and the subtitle in almost all caps is quite telling.
It's NOT that I disagree. Every now and then I do consider something nonmainstream credible enough to research deeper. Guess how such research ends up. Poorly.
Good luck with your hate speech site.
That said, dubbing yourself 'unstoppable' & 'uncensorable' just paints a huge target on your back.
Is it really "equal measure"? Somehow I think this service will get a lot more "horrific" than "best" voices.
I often wonder if people who create these sites are truly blind to what ends up on them?
It seems like, if someone didn't want one of these platforms to succeed, all that would be necessary would be to hire a few people to spam certain taboo words and ideas from various sockpuppet accounts, and then the rest of the world points at it and says, "It seems like everyone on this platform really does just want to scream the N-word in everyone's face all day, deep down. Good luck with your hate speech site."
And, just like that, the new platform is forever known as a haven of hate, never to be used by "respectable" people. Now, back to Reddit and Facebook and Twitter with you, where we can build a profile of everything you've said, cross-reference it with any other accounts you may have, and hide content we don't want you to see. After all, you're not an -ist, are you?
(fwiw, I doubt that the paid trolls are lurking in obscure forums. They're posting on Facebook and Twitter themselves)
This is an absolutely ridiculous and tiresome caricature. Honestly, where have you actually seen this? I've seen some fairly "coarse" discussion forums in my time. They're not really to my taste, but I rarely (if ever) see people using the N-word, let alone screaming it in people's faces.
Think about this. Last year, if you said that covid might have come from a lab, you were saying something that was obviously wrong, your post should be removed, you should be suspended, and you might be a racist as well. Fast-forward to now, well actually it's pretty possible that it might have come from a lab, maybe we should have talked about that...
The problem to solve with anonymous message boards is getting rid of the bad-faith actors. I think we need a system that allows individuals to subscribe to independent moderators. The central company provides the infrastructure and makes a marketplace where individuals can upload their own ban lists and moderation algorithms that people can subscribe to, allowing you to curate your feed based on many options of moderation. Maybe kinda similar to ad-blockers, some of which get rid of everything and some of which allow some stuff through, that follows standards. This way the central company is insulated from having to worry about moderation, except to remove obviously illegal content, and individuals get a variety of choices and can't blame some central authority for making decisions on the content they see.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
95% of the page was conspiracy-tards and racists. Noped right off, and haven't been on since.
Just launched it again and the front page shows a video from some asshole talking about how she's discovered that Measles is a sham and SHE has uncovered the fact that NOBODY has proved the existence of virus particles! Also, turns out that PCR is fake, who knew? eyeroll
LBRY is now dominated by "pseudopandemic" vloggers, antivaxxers, 9/11 conspiratards, "population control" conspiratards, "Australia is FALLING!!!"...the list goes on.
There are people who legitimately could use censorship-free platforms, but they're drowned out by all the assholes and morons who think they're being "censored" by (insert boogeyman here) trying to hide THE TRUTH...when really it's that nobody can stand their bigotry/stupidity.
I'd say it's a great win-win. They get to spout whatever they want, and no one has to hear it.
People still use clearnet websites that do this every day. For some sites, read: news outlets, it is their business model.
We're just caught up in the middle of a moral panic and the church ladies from SNL have come out of the woodwork, flapping their arms about how everything is s/satanic/racist.
They only see this problem and try to solve it in the worst way. Accepting everything and everyone, offering a confusing experience, financially unattractive and often need to charge dearly for it.
