Logically, it's likely there must be trade-offs for higher IQs or it would have been selected for more strongly.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24758985

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24594663

Points: 131

# Comments: 34

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.

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

There is no search all of PeerTube. There is search all of LBRY.

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).

You can read more in our IEEE paper here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9126007

Or dig into the specification and APIs at https://lbry.tech

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24235774

Points: 45

# Comments: 17

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23987215

Points: 6

# Comments: 1

This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2020/03/variolation-may-cut-co...

1. They had someone with a clear history of strong anti-Trump and anti-Republican sentiment take the action (https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/126545757821512499...)

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?

3. They picked something that is actually debatable! A bipartisan committee concluded it carried some risks in 2005: https://www.wsj.com/articles/heed-jimmy-carter-on-the-danger...

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).

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.

P2P desktop client: https://lbry.com/get

Web-version: https://lbry.tv

Tech documentation: https://lbry.tech

Almost 100 people contributed to LBRY last month, and more than 2 million people used it.

Come join us, and escape YouTube :)

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 jeremy@lbry.com if you want to say hi.

Thousands of these pages have existed for days and are continuing to be created on a daily basis. Because the attack pages include photos of the users, they get a notification and many (quite reasonably!) become unsettled. Some cannot tell that it is not actually the real company.

Example page (this is my company's name and logo, but not us): https://spee.ch/@thumbnails/25be5a1dfd08bf7c.png

We tell our users to report the pages, but because each page is only reported by the user and us, many remain up.

We attempted to get a verified page by Facebook in the hopes this would grant additional protection (no idea if this is true), but were denied and told we can only re-apply in one month.

Is there anything else we can do to mitigate this?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23092442

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

The core idea of LBRY is to make YouTube-like experiences possible without Google (alternatively, to fix the discovery, incentive, and legitimacy problems of BitTorrent).

https://lbry.com (consumer portal)

https://lbry.tech (tech portal)

https://lbry.tv (web app)

We were also just mentioned on HN in Andy Baio's article on Deep Fakes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23011445