No, other people are unilaterally making up rules and applying them to me. I would happily live in a society without IP, but am not permitted to do so. Those who support IP demand it globally, at the barrel of a gun.
Many people didn't want to send email in the 1990s either.
A blockchain is the only technology that allows a simultaneously decentralized and coherent view of what exists on a network along with local control over identity.
I think blockchain sucks in many ways and is a big hassle. We try to hide it as much as possible. It's still the right solution to this problem.
More than 25,000 YouTubers now publish to the LBRY protocol, with more coming over every day, for reasons just like this. The total reach of these creators is more than 400,000,000 people.
We're just rolling out our mainstream video product explicitly designed to compete with YouTube @ https://odysee.com
To learn more about the protocol itself, check out https://lbry.tech
A blockchain retains a complete, coherent, censorship-resistant listing of what's available on a network in a way that local or federated key-pairs can not.
There is no search all of PeerTube. There is search all of LBRY.
LBRY is the best YouTube alternative because it is the only one that fundamentally changes social video in a way that YouTube cannot copy.
LBRY uses a public blockchain to allow creators to retain complete control over their publishing identity. It also has a beautiful consumer app experience at https://lbry.tv, which was used by about 4M people last month (P2P apps at lbry.com/get).
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs
This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
2. Twitter chose a prediction rather than a factual statement to fact check ("Mail-In Ballots will be..."). Why not start with a truly factually wrong statement about the past?
The notion that a company can ever be trusted to "fact check" (aka determine objective truth) is just completely laughable. The closest we can come is labeling agent beliefs about truth ("X says Y is false").
Doing nothing would be better than doing this. Even better would be building solutions that allow community-based (and ideally personalized) derivations of consensus (this is what we're doing at LBRY).
If you think the idea of trusting giant social media corporations with the levers to control our speech is outrageous, so does everyone working on LBRY.
We are working hard to design systems that have the same user experience as the traditional web, but fundamentally redesigned so that this kind of behavior is outright impossible. LBRY allows for local control of the publishing experience, and layers identity, discovery, and payments on top of a distributed data network.
Yes yes yes. I am saving this comment I can quote it again in the future.
The development of any number of now widely accepted truths went through periods where they were viewed incredibly skeptically.
It's inconceivable to me that anyone could even want to _have_ the argument of wanting a central censor again. Haven't we already had this battle enough times? Is the evidence not incontrovertible that societies where people are free to speak and exchange ideas are better than societies that are not?
It's rational, I think, to want our software to offer warnings and controls that let us, _as individuals_, choose to hide, filter, or shrink-wrap certain information. Completely surrendering that trust to someone else is utterly insane.
P.S. I'm the CEO of LBRY, and this stance is pretty core to what we do. Email me at [email protected] if you want to say hi.
Logically, it's likely there must be trade-offs for higher IQs or it would have been selected for more strongly.