I'm curious as to whether PeerTube has a plan to combat the so-called "Nazi Problem". That is, how do you prevent everyone's instances from being linked to (and th…

@nutomic
admin
138M

The answer from the Peertube devs seems to be “not at all”. Its pretty telling that this issue has been open for two years, without any action taken. Even joinpeertube.org lists nazi instances, because its completely unmoderated.

@fruechtchen
creator
68M

which one is a nazi instance? and what is the source for it being nazi?

Here is one full of Nordic Resistance Movement’s videos and other Nazi content https://peertube.se/

@Quadle4
14M

Pure nazis.

@fruechtchen
creator
58M

thanks

@nutomic
admin
58M

Okay I dont see any nazi instances in our blocklist, but maybe thats just because it doesnt show the block reason. But here is one thats full of conspiracy theories.

https://peertube.alter-nativ-voll.de/videos/local

Dessalines
admin
48M

Yikes, not good. At least you can block instances, but its not good to see the devs be silent on that.

@nutomic
admin
88M

Actually you cant, Peertube doesn’t have a proper block option.

That is a massive design flaw. And one that really has no reason to exist.

This should be instance-level, not top-down.

If all Nazis will be banned from PeerTube, it’s well on its way to becoming just another YouTube, as far as censorship goes.

@Quadle4
04M

Nazis wants censorship for anyone, but them.

SnowCode
47M

I got your point. I actually don’t agree with the fact it should be in the joinpeertube list. I don’t think you can close websites, but just not promoting them on joinpeertube would be OK.

Otherwise I got your point and I agree with the fact that you can’t and shouldn’t try to regulate such instances. But if such instances are really breaking the law, then I don’t think it’s Peertube’s problem, it should be justice’s problem.

Actual nazi propaganda and the like definitely crosses the line between acceptable and unacceptable, and no one should host it anywhere on the internet.

As a fan of free speech, I disagree.

Did YouTube banning Alex Jones end his show? Did it keep him from spreading fake news?

By having extremists move to their own isolated silos, nothing is left to stop their confirmation bias. It doesn’t get rid of the followers at all, because alt-right conspiracy land is a very cult-like environment.

@abbenm
117M

Did YouTube banning Alex Jones end his show? Did it keep him from spreading fake news?

It had a massive measurable impact on his audience, yes. It indisputably helped reduce the audience for his misinformation. And when Twitter banned Milo Yiannopolis, it similarly smashed his audience and viewership.

Secondly, none of the virtues we associate with free speech are protected by letting online platforms become gamed by bad actors.

The effect of that ‘openness’ is that the diversity of opinion is lost. The range of ideas expressed gets narrower, quality of conversation is reduced. Basically every virtue that we strive to protect is thrown away by this naiive defense of ‘free speech’.

By having extremists move to their own isolated silos, nothing is left to stop their confirmation bias.

I think that it wouldn’t make a difference where they post because I would imagine that confirmation bias is more internal than external. As in they’ll always have a similar level of it no matter where they are.

It doesn’t get rid of the followers at all, because alt-right conspiracy land is a very cult-like environment.

Maybe it doesn’t get rid of existing followers, but I would think by limiting their reach, it would reduce the rate at which people become followers.

Also, what about if an instance doesn’t want to host such content and also doesn’t want to federate with instances that do? If there is no effective blocking function, they have no choice. If it were me, I’d just shut down my instance down rather than allow nazis and the like to be visible through it.

It’s definitely a laudable goal to want to slow the growth of these groups. It’s just that personally, if there was an option that could lead folks out of the deception, I’d go for that.

As far as instances not wanting to host Nazi content, I think that’s fine, and a necessary mechanism for admins to use. I was under the impression that PeerTube instances can block each other as Mastodon/Pleroma/Soapbox/Misskey instances do, and they can block Nazi content in the same way if they wish. If they don’t have such a mechanism added yet, they need to add it soon, I personally think it’s essential to allowing admins to moderate as they see fit.

I see FOSS software as a newfound opportunity for freedom. I feel as though I should be able to argue with Nazis, and you and others should be able to host instances that block them. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is no utility in debating fascists. No one should be forced to justify their right to exist, but by engaging fascists in debate, you are breathing life into a discourse which does exactly that. Fascism should be rejected outright on the premise, in much the same way as flat earthers, climate science deniers, and creationists. Relitigating issues like whether or not the Holocaust was bad is not productive.

Since Lemmy is free software, there is nothing preventing fascists from creating a space for fascist discussion. If you wish to debate with fascists, there is nothing stopping you from joining their space and doing so. That is enough for free speech as far as I’m concerned. There is also the matter of the project maintainer’s free speech, and they should not be compelled to list fascist instances in any sort of directory, or federate with fascists and relay their traffic.

Also I’m pretty sure that free speech absolutely does not involve requiring the a privately owned website to host things like offensive (for example, fascist) content.

This isn’t really true. He once again rose to relevancy in the alt-right by siding with Nick Fuentes over Turning Point USA.

The reports of Milo’s death have been greatly exaggerated, lol

@abbenm
147M

Yes, it is really true.

Milo doesn’t have the audience he used to have. The reason is that he was deplatformed.

If you’re going to claim that deplatforming doesn’t work because he is still actively engaging with the 5% of his remaining audience that he’s still able to reach, and hasn’t technically vanished from the earth, that’s an exercise in sophistry that isn’t worth anyone’s time.

Milo lost his audience went he went on a podcast and condoned older men dating 14 year old boys. Deplatforming might have helped, but not much.

@abbenm
107M

More sophistry. He was deplatformed after those comments which is how he lost his audience. Milo himself has said in interviews that his lack of access to major platforms, not those comments, are what did him in.

@mukt
-67M

That implies that he was deplatformed for supporting paedophilia, and not for being a neo-nazi - making his case irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

@abbenm
77M

I can’t believe I have to say this, but whether or not deplatforming works actually is very relevant to a discussion about deplatforming. If he was deplatformed after Nazi comments and lost his audience, that would show that deplatforming works. If he was deplatformed after making comments about pedophilia and lost his audience, that would also show that deplatforming works. Swapping out the subject matter doesn’t change anything about the effect of deplatforming on ones ability to spread their message, and that’s the thing this discussion is about.

@mukt
07M

As far as I have seen, the “Nazi” audience feels strongly about paedophilia and will not be inclined to follow someone who defends it to another platform - this is obviously a big factor in Milo’s case.

The counter case is that of TrueIndology - a political account who digs obscure bits of Indian history and presents them with an inconvinient narrative. Twitter removed him for a trival offence when he had about 100k followers and gave that usernane to someone else. This fellow set up his thing on facebook, etc but kept on pursuing the case with twitter, posting screenshots of emails and all. Later, he opened a fresh account on twitter. In less than one year, the twitter following of this fresh account is now 140k.

Deplatforming doesn’t work unless bulk of audience is convinced that there are good grounds for doing it.

@abbenm
37M

I highly doubt anyone agrees with your interpretation of events and have little interest in debating it, and I’m also not going to debate derails into other subjects. This conversation is about deplatforming, Milo was deplatformed, he lost is audience, and he acknowledged as much in interviews, and is a strong example that deplatforming works, and that observation is relevant to the discussion at hand. You appear to want to argue about whether deplatforming for one kind of inflammatory opinion is effective but not another - the logic of that argument doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t worth debating. If you want to talk about something else, perhaps you can start a new thread and whoever is interested can join you there.

@mukt
17M

I highly doubt anyone agrees with your interpretation of events and have little interest in debating it, …

Doesn’t matter as long as none of “anyone” can refute logically what I am saying. Unpopular opinions can be true, and even become popular opinions with time. For example, what the church did to Galelio or Bruno didn’t matter - their unpopular opinions won.

Milo was deplatformed, he lost is audience, and he acknowledged as much in interviews, …

Do you believe that Milo is always right? Or, do you think he is right in this case because what he said here aligns with your own opinions?

You appear to want to argue about whether deplatforming for one kind of inflammatory opinion is effective but not another.

That is certainly one leg of what I am saying.

the logic of that argument doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t worth debating.

I gave you a verifiable example which stands in direct contradiction to your thesis. I don’t expect it to make sense to you until you find the error in your thesis and modify it suitably.

@abbenm
37M

This will be my last response here because this is such an astonishingly juvenile argument. Some stuff I’m not bothering to engage with because it’s asinine and a waste of time. If you can look at my response and tell yourself ‘aha! I got him with logic!’ you’re simply not understanding what is happening in this conversation.

Do you believe that Milo is always right? Or, do you think he is right in this case because what he said here aligns with your own opinions?

I think he’s right because he’s correctly stating a thing that happened. Do you think he is always wrong or in this case do you think he’s wrong because what he said here doesn’t align with your own opinions? This is such a juvenile way to argue. You don’t even know how to dispute what Milo is saying, so you handwave toward the hypothetical possibility that might be untrue, even though you don’t really know that one way or the other. And you’re using an argument that can just as easily by applied to you, because it’s just as hypothetically true of your own biases as anybody else’s, which is the kind of argument that cancels itself out, leaving you back where you started. The fact that you handed that steaming pile of BS to me and thought to yourself ‘yes, this is a good argument that advances the conversation’ really says everything, and honestly I should just stop right there.

What I believe is that Milo was deplatformed which effectively annihilated his career, which was obvious to anyone observing what happened. I believe his public persona was built upon the idea that he couldn’t be stopped, that no amount of deplatforming would work, and that for him fame and public notoriety were measures of his idea of success. So, beyond the fact that it was obviously true that deplatforming caused him to lose his audience, the fact that even he himself would admit to having been defeated after denying it was even possible, goes so against his self concept and against his interests that it is compelling evidence that he wouldn’t be saying it unless it were true. When someone admits something that is against their interest to admit, it carries credibility in a way that’s distinct from making claims that conform to your own interests.

I gave you a verifiable example which stands in direct contradiction to your thesis

You didn’t even remotely do this at all. You incorrectly claimed that the thread was ‘about’ which kind of subject matter lead to deplatforming, which was not, in fact, what anyone was talking about, gave a completely unproven and strange idea that it had to do with the distinction between Nazism and pedophilia without any support at all, and advanced an argument that didn’t have anything at all to do with the cause and effect relationship between deplatforming and the loss of access to an audience which was the actual thing that was talked about. And I explained this to you once already.

I can tell by the way you are speaking that you believe you have some monopoly on logic here that proves you right, so let me be as clear as I can be. You’re not galileo, you’re not being disregarded because your arguments are profound, you’re being disregarded because they’re asinine, tedious that they wouldn’t even withstand scrutiny on a JV debate team, and wrong in ways that are so obvious it’s honestly not the best use of my time to even bother with them.

@mukt
17M

This will be my last response here because this is such an astonishingly juvenile argument. Some stuff I’m not bothering to engage with because it’s asinine and a waste of time. If you can look at my response and tell yourself ‘aha! I got him with logic!’ you’re simply not understanding what is happening in this conversation.

If name-calling and educated insults could count as good argument, your words here would had certainly amounted to something.

Do you believe that Milo is always right? Or, do you think he is right in this case because what he said here aligns with your own opinions?

I think he’s right because he’s correctly stating a thing that happened.

… so, the latter case.

Do you think he is always wrong or in this case do you think he’s wrong because what he said here doesn’t align with your own opinions?

I don’t care for Milo’s opinions one way or other. All he did was to write propaganda pieces for American RW.

This is such a juvenile way to argue. You don’t even know how to dispute what Milo is saying, so you handwave toward the hypothetical possibility that might be untrue, even though you don’t really know that one way or the other.

Milo’s case has been cited here as anecdotal evidence to make a faulty generalized statement. While such propaganda might be sufficient to convince you, don’t expect others to be as blind.

And you’re using an argument that can just as easily by applied to you, because it’s just as hypothetically true of your own biases as anybody else’s, which is the kind of argument that cancels itself out, leaving you back where you started.

Never mind the poorly imagined consequences, I’d genuinely like to see you attempt that.

The fact that you handed that steaming pile of BS to me and thought to yourself ‘yes, this is a good argument that advances the conversation’ really says everything, and honestly I should just stop right there.

I have zero interest in advancing the conversation here. I saw a poor argument advocated for this site’s policy and countered that. You are free to stop anywhere you feel suitable.

What I believe is that Milo was deplatformed which effectively annihilated his career, which was obvious to anyone observing what happened. I believe his public persona was built upon the idea that he couldn’t be stopped, that no amount of deplatforming would work, and that for him fame and public notoriety were measures of his idea of success. So, beyond the fact that it was obviously true that deplatforming caused him to lose his audience, the fact that even he himself would admit to having been defeated after denying it was even possible, goes so against his self concept and against his interests that it is compelling evidence that he wouldn’t be saying it unless it were true. When someone admits something that is against their interest to admit, it carries credibility in a way that’s distinct from making claims that conform to your own interests.

If Milo has been seen as supporting paedophilia, you cannot revive his career of writing RW propaganda just by re-platforming him.

I gave you a verifiable example which stands in direct contradiction to your thesis

You didn’t even remotely do this at all. You incorrectly claimed that the thread was ‘about’ which kind of subject matter lead to deplatforming, which was not, in fact, what anyone was talking about, gave a completely unproven and strange idea that it had to do with the distinction between Nazism and pedophilia without any support at all, and advanced an argument that didn’t have anything at all to do with the cause and effect relationship between deplatforming and the loss of access to an audience which was the actual thing that was talked about. And I explained this to you once already.

The thread is about the “Nazis problem”. Milo was cited by u/nutomic as a case to support the thesis that deplatforming works, without any regards as to where it works, or any care for how or why it works - you (not u/nutomic) are the one seen as defending this thesis against all attacks, including mine.

I gave a clear example where deplatforming didn’t work. In that example, neither paedophilia, nor nazism come into picture.

I can tell by the way you are speaking that you believe you have some monopoly on logic here that proves you right, so let me be as clear as I can be. You’re not galileo, you’re not being disregarded because your arguments are profound, you’re being disregarded because they’re asinine, tedious that they wouldn’t even withstand scrutiny on a JV debate team, and wrong in ways that are so obvious it’s honestly not the best use of my time to even bother with them.

The best use of your time would be to learn a bit about ad hominem and why it doesn’t work against good logic.

@mukt
17M

I highly doubt anyone agrees with your interpretation of events and have little interest in debating it, …

Doesn’t matter as long as none of “anyone” can refute logically what I am saying. Unpopular opinions can be true, and even become popular opinions with time. For example, what the church did to Galelio or Bruno didn’t matter - their unpopular opinions won.

Milo was deplatformed, he lost is audience, and he acknowledged as much in interviews, …

Do you believe that Milo is always right? Or, do you think he is right in this case because what he said here aligns with your own opinions?

You appear to want to argue about whether deplatforming for one kind of inflammatory opinion is effective but not another.

That is certainly one leg of what I am saying.

the logic of that argument doesn’t make any sense, and isn’t worth debating.

I gave you a verifiable example which stands in direct contradiction to your thesis. I don’t expect it to make sense to you until you find the error in your thesis and modify it suitably.

@abbenm
17M

deleted by creator

A community dedicated to fediverse news.