Odysee, a decentralised YouTube alternative focused on free speech, is officially ending the serving of ads on the platform, starting today. The post:

"Dear friends of Odysee, Starting today, we’re removing all ads. We don’t need ads to make money as a platform and we are confident in the development of our own new monetisation programs that will help creators earn a living and at the same time keep Odysee alive. Ultimately, sacrificing the overall user experience to make a few bucks isn’t worth it to us and nor is it even sustainable for a platform that wishes to make something truly open and creatively free.

As we take this decision, one thing is certain to us, media platforms (even ones that market themselves as ‘free-speech’) typically devolve into advertising companies and end up becoming beholden to their paymasters. It’s been that way for centuries and is never going to change.

As we see YouTube become more aggressive with their ad deployment and ‘Free Speech’ platforms try to build their own ad businesses it’s apparent to us that we’re building a model for Odysee that will keep it sustainable not only financially, but in its ability to provide an incorruptible user experience.

Our approach may be considered niche or unconventional, that’s fine by us. Odysee will be used by the world on terms that are agreeable to its users, and we know our users don’t like ads.

Best, Founder & Creator, Chief Executive Officer. Julian Chandra"

  • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I used to like Odysee until I saw them clearly promote conspiracy theories and far-right, almost Nazi rhetoric on the homepage.

    Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn’t mean your centralized frontend can’t be modified by you.

    They never even made a single attempt to help others develop alternative frontends too, so the decentralization there was more akin to decentralization theater.

    • sapporo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      As if Youtube didn’t promote conspiracy theories and almost Nazi rhetorics that serve the country it’s based in. They do, which they don’t call as such. Everything else they’ll call conspiracy theories and propaganda.

      • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I have no idea why you’re being downvoted since you’re 100% correct. I watch one video about gaming and YouTube’s recommendations are all alt-right anti-feminist stuff with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

        Google surely knows enough about me to know I lean far-left but the algorithm is determined to feed me that slop.

        I have no idea from a technical perspective if Odysee’s algorithm is independent from or worse than YouTube’s, but the criticism of YouTube is completely valid.

        • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I have watched super progressive content on Youtube but also watched conservative content as well. It’s possible there are a lot of progressives who also watch content from the other side so the algorithm pushes it.

          • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I didn’t read the argument as saying one platform’s behavior excuses the other. I saw it as saying that both are bad.

            It certainly doesn’t come across as a defense of either platform to say they’re both infested by Nazis.

      • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The difference between Odysee and YouTube is that YouTube doesn’t claim to be a free speech platform that allows any possible statements on, and does often take down a lot of the harmful content. You only see the remainder, not the whole.

        Odysee is quite small, and as such, could relatively easily moderate much more of the content on its platform, if they actually cared about doing so.

        Odysee explicitly tries to allow as much speech as possible, claiming that they totally won’t allow any bad content, while in reality, platforming LGBTQ+ misinformation, white nationalist rhetoric, anti-immigrant propaganda, etc.

        All of those violate their Community Guidelines, by the way. But remember, it’s guidelines, not actual policy as to what they remove.

    • smooth_tea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Guys, just because the backbone of your site is decentralized doesn’t mean your centralized frontend can’t be modified by you.

      I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Did you mean can be modified? Or what does this have to do with Nazi rhetoric? Maybe you have a different idea about the word “frontend”?

      • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sorry if my wording was unclear, let me rephrase.

        Odysee is the platform, the site, the frontend, and the company. LBRY was the backend, the blockchain-based system that actually stored the videos themselves.

        Odysee was the main interface to interact with the videos stored on LBRY, to essentially act like YouTube, but the videos were technically available to anyone.

        Odysee then used the justification that the backend was decentralized to say that they had to remain entirely neutral to any content on Odysee, because a decentralized system inherently cannot have its content censored by one party.

        This ignored the fact that they could choose to modify which videos their frontend would show to users. They acted as if this was not possible, even though it was.

        Thus, a decent YouTube alternative with some good creators on it refused to censor any nazi content that started making its way there because YouTube rightfully deplatformed its supporters, and let it infect the platform without doing anything to stop it, pretending as if they had no choice, while in reality, it just brought them more revenue.

        • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s a shame because the thing that kills alternative platforms is getting flooded with racists to the point that they drive everyone else out.

          A lot of “free speech” platforms box themselves into a corner by declaring themselves “free speech” platforms while intending that to mean they won’t ban users for mild wrongthink, but then white supremacists show up, and if they get banned then they start causing a massive shitstorm over the fact that the platform isn’t truly supporting free speech. Then they drive out all the normal people who don’t want to be associated with them and the platform is forced to shutdown.

          Then you have morons like Tim Pool who will endlessly attack “free speech” platforms if they ban white supremacists.