Talk:LBRY/Archive 1

COVID misinformation
I do not appreciate the accusation that I have not read a source that I myself added, or that my edit was my "editorializing/imagination". This is the sentence in the article: A May 2021 report by The Guardian found "scores of extremist videos" on the Odysee platform that promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories, glorified Adolf Hitler and other Nazis, shared COVID-19 misinformation, and depicted meetings and rallies by extremist groups including the white nationalist and antisemitic National Justice party and the neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance Movement. This is the source: The Guardian’s review of channels linked to by the complainant revealed scores of extremist videos, some of which have been viewed thousands of times. Variously they promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories – including versions of the “Great Replacement” narrative, claiming Jews were orchestrating the demographic replacement of white people through mass immigration. They also glorified Hitler and other Nazis, showed meetings and rallies held by extremist parties like National Justice and Nordic Resistance, promoted disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines, and featured titles like The Pure Evil of the Jews, Second American Civil War, Treblinka Wasn’t a Death Camp, and They Want You Dead, White Man. "COVID-19 misinformation" is a completely reasonable paraphrasing of "disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines". It is your edit to remove that clause, apparently based on your opinion on the content of these videos ("[now substantially vindicated] skepticism of health agencies (whose guidance shifted continuously) is not and was not extremism"), that is unsupported by sourcing. Also, please do more discussing on the talk page and less via revert/edit summary (WP:REVTALK), and acquaint yourself with WP:BRD if you are not already familiar. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Moderation sentence in lead
So far the sentences proposed for the comment about moderation in the lead have been (underlining just to highlight the bit under discussion; I think the rest is uncontroversial):
 * 1) The company has described LBRY as a platform for free speech, and minimally moderates the content uploaded to Odysee and other platforms it has built using the technology.
 * 2) The company has described LBRY as a platform for free speech, but moderates to remove pornography and that which promotes violence and terrorism from the content uploaded to Odysee and other platforms it has built utilizing its LBRY protocol.
 * 3) The company has described LBRY as a platform for free speech, and moderates content which promotes violence and terrorism on Odysee and other platforms it has built utilizing its LBRY protocol.

My preference is for option one, and leaving the detail to the article body. I think it's too much detail for the lead, and it also runs the risk of implying that that is the totality of content which LBRY disallows (which is not the case). I think "minimally moderates" is well sourced to the TechCrunch article, as well as NHPR. Regardless of which option we go with, I think we should avoid "but"—it suggests that their moderation choices contradict their self-description as a free speech site, which as far as I'm aware no source says. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I really had hoped that we could get to some agreement without having to resort to another long-form discussion, but I guess that's not going to happen. I believe this is a good start to resolving the previous issue, but I do feel that there has been no clear consensus regarding the previously mentioned sentence of the lead. I'm fine with removing the word "but". I'm fine with shortening the moderation specifics. However, not fine with removing the specific idea that they moderate against "violence and terrorism".
 * The reason being that many equate the "far right" to be a synonym for advocacy of terrorism and violence, so it leaves out some important context in my opinion. I'd opt for option three. Brian Reading (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd also note that LBRY is not itself a platform, but rather a protocol, and so we should probably fix that as well. Brian Reading (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How would you propose that I begin coming to agreement aside from a talk page discussion? I have no interest in edit-warring to discuss via edit summary (WP:REVTALK). As for the previous sentence, the conversation at NPOVN has only been open for a few days, so hopefully more folks will chime in to help come to consensus there.
 * What about, "The company has described LBRY as a platform for free speech, and lightly moderates content including to remove promotion of violence and terrorism on Odysee and other platforms it has built utilizing its LBRY protocol." at least as an interim solution while others weigh in? It feels altogether too wordy to me, and is probably weighting LBRY's moderation policies more heavily than sourcing supports, but it's at least a little more clear that that is not the only content they remove.
 * LBRY is (unfortunately) the name used for multiple things, including the protocol and the company. This article (and its sources) refers to the various sites built atop LBRY (Odysee, lbry.tv, formerly spee.ch) as "the LBRY platform". LBRY themselves make reference to "our platform" etc. on their website so I don't think this is unusual. If you think it would be clearer, though, we could perhaps reword to something like: "The company has described Odysee and other platforms it has built utilizing its LBRY protocol as platforms for free speech, and lightly moderates content including to remove promotion of violence and terrorism." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was in regards to how uncontroversial I had felt that the modifications I had made to the content you had posted were. I am in agreement with using the last sentence here. A sincere thanks for working hard at quick resolution. We are bumping heads with a few things here, but it's not without appreciation for the matter. Cheers. Brian Reading (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I referred to it as an "interim solution" because I wanted to fix what I felt was potentially misleading information ASAP. But I do still think we should discuss whether these specifics about LBRY's moderation policies ought to be included in the lead at all. The fact that LBRY moderates violent and/or terroristic content is not particularly noteworthy—basically all platforms do. It would be noteworthy if they didn't, maybe. That they prohibit pornographic material, as you mentioned in your edit captured in #2 above, is perhaps more unusual, but hardly the focus of any RS, and they are not the only alt-tech service to do it (Gab does as well). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the terminology is confusing. There can possibly be said to be up to 3 distinct things "LBRY" refers to: the LBRY protocol, the LBRY platform (stuff published to LBRY), and LBRY inc. I found a link on their FAQ which seems to suggest that they prefer to present LBRY as the protocol and LBRY inc as the company behind LBRY (the protocol), then just don't refer to LBRY as a platform (they're essentially the same until someone makes a new LBRY instance, anyway). "While there is a company behind LBRY called LBRY Inc., we attempt to tie our own hands as much as possible" Conscious Code (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

When even the Official White House channel is there, are we comfortable saying that this is a "far right" thing?
Yes, there seems to be more right-wing than left-wing content there, but characterizing it as something popular with the "far right" in the lead itself seems a bit much. The Official White House staff has deemed it something they want to participate in, and it seems like a stretch to say that they'd want to participate in a "far right" thing. There also seems to be quite a lot of apolitical content there as well. Brian Reading (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement that Odysee has become popular among members of the far-right is not the same as saying that the platform itself is "a 'far right' thing", that it's exclusively used by members of the far right, etc. It is also firmly established by reliable sources, and an accurate summary of the LBRY section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that the lead is meant to the emphasize material that should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, and to include that it is something popular with the far-right without mention of anything otherwise of the content, implies that this is particularly a political platform for the far-right. Singling-out a particular political slant without also acknowledging the other prominent popularity seems non-neutral. Is your stance such that if the "Content and Users" section were to hold verifiable information about the non-right wing usage, and its popularity regarding that as well, then the lead should be adjusted accordingly? I wouldn't mind contributing some information about the usage by prominent users intending to participate in LBRY with apolitical and other political slants, if that would be helpful. I definitely have no intention of wanting to alter the content about the far-right's usage in the article as you've mentioned, as it is helpful to understand the subject. My only concern as of now is the lead. Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article should reflect the prominent views on a subject as described in reliable sources, and the lead should reflect the article. If I've missed some RS coverage of some other prominent content on Odysee, feel free to add it, but I haven't seen much in RS about it. From what I've seen, sources mention that non-extremist content exists on Odysee, but they don't focus on it. For example, NHPR's report mentions "With more than 10 million videos already uploaded, there is plenty of everything on Odysee, from guitar lessons and video gaming to cooking shows", but the focus of its reporting is on the extremism. This article, and the lead, reflect that weight. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the issue is due to lack of coverage from reliable sources around LBRY altogether. I've done a deep dive so far, and I'm just not seeing much out there. There is plenty of non-controversial tech-oriented coverage, but because these sources are not well-known, there would probably be questions that arise from including them here. We are at a weird point where a new technology arises, controversial topics are encouraged in major media sources, and academic coverage around these technologies seem to be rooted in a sort of political activism by means of think tanks. I think it will take some time for any significant coverage to occur outside of a political perspective of the content, which is sad, in my personal opinion. As time progresses, I will revisit this. However, I do still hold the stance that there is an implication in the lead that its usage is dominated by far right political content and users, and that this is not factually true, but since no original research is allowed on Wikipedia, I will leave this issue be for now. Brian Reading (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree here - a particularly insidious form of systemic bias is bias towards controversy. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Elli and Brian; I checked Odysee as a non-user and one of the channels in the home page that I have seen is Destiny, who is a left-wing political debater. How the lead sentence is phrased with the site "being popular with the far-right" has a very-similar tone to the site "being far-right" and I feel a lot of people who see this would feel the same way. I think we should get rid of it in the lead and add a Controversy section that takes into account of the far-right content in the website and how LBRY responds to it. I believe the LBRY article should also follow the format of the YouTube article and put all far-right content and sources in a section under Content as "LBRY as a tool of conspiracy theorists and far-right". I also hold some bias against some of the sources here, as I feel the far-right is a minority in Odysee yet the media portrays them as an influential force, judging by the fact that a majority of them are more congregated in Bitchute and I see more tech videos and Youtubers joining Odysee (like SomeOrdinaryGamers). However, I cannot let personal experiences dictate what will be on the article so what I suggest should be put in place and give the website a few more months (or years) and then update the article. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article, as with any, must reflect the weight of reliable sources, not your personal experiences with the site or observations on what is hosted there. The statements in this article, which are that there is far-right and extremist content and users on the site, is not contradicted by the existence of other content there. Please see WP:CSECTION for why we generally avoid "controversies" sections. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like we're now starting to get into a different sort of territory in terms of whether or not the wording should stay is it is in the lead. I don't think anyone is saying the content should not exist in the article, but simply that its inclusion in the lead implies non-neutrality. Another of Wikipedia's pillars is consensus, and if we are seeing three people now who disagree with the wording as argued by its author, I do think that is meaningful. I have placed a POV lead template in order to invite further comment here for now. We can revisit this again if we do not receive further input. Brian Reading (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for at least commenting here, as I was under the impression the above had been resolved. Can you elaborate on but simply that its inclusion in the lead implies non-neutrality? As you acknowledge, it's a significant portion of RS coverage of LBRY, which means it ought to go in the lead per MOS:LEAD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think it should be in the lead - as it currently is is fine, though perhaps something like might be a bit better? Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly open to wording improvements, though I don't think it's safe to say (at least from the existing sources) that it's the decentralization that has led to its popularity among the far right. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made my opinion on the matter known above, but I've also tried to remain conservative in my approach because the inclusion of such appears to be political in nature, and I do not like to stir the pot. To summarize, it appears non-neutral because there is a lack of sources that cover the subject outside of a controversial viewpoint, simply because it is a newer topic, and we are in a weird state of coverage on the matter. I think Elli has said it quite succinctly in that the "bias is bias towards controversy". I had said that I think this requires revisiting. Since we now have two other Wikipedians chiming in, there is the notion of WP:CONSENSUS at-hand.
 * Let's review what I see occurring here:
 * Someone who appears to hold an activist sort of stance in their editing on Wikipedia adds content to the lead that implies the topic is controversial in its usage.
 * Another editor, who does not typically contribute to political topics, disputes this, but agrees to leave wording as-is, and simply revisit in the future.
 * Two other editors make a comment in agreement with the non-activist editor.
 * Two others remove the content with a message of disagreement in the comment.
 * Each time the original author re-adds the content back.
 * The original disputer adds a template requesting for comment in the dispute after seeing the others chiming in.
 * The original author instantly removes the request for comment tag without even allowing so much as a refresh to the talk page within five minutes of time.
 * The tag was added-back, and the conversation continues.
 * So now we literally have five editors who do not agree with the inclusion of such content in the lead versus the original author's stance, and I don't see the edits occurring in bad faith. Again, we do still have the notion of consensus and not getting into edit wars as a fourth pillar of Wikipedia, so your re-adding the content and removing requests for comment, is not the best route here.
 * Some others might actually disagree with me that we should entertain that further consensus can be had, but I think the best thing to do moving forward is to let things stay as-is for now, try to let it cool down, and grab organic (read "organic") request for comments rather than any sort of manufactured brigade. I'd call that reasonable. Do you agree? Brian Reading (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of "hold[ing] an activist sort of stance in [my] editing on Wikipedia", please do it with diffs at the appropriate noticeboard. My actions, to restore the status quo while discussion was ongoing, was perfectly standard, as was my removal of a drive-by tag that made no explanation of your concerns after a discussion that appeared to have been resolved. Please also note that Wikipedia does not operate by sheer vote-counting, and that consensus is evaluated based on the policy-based arguments of various editors. I am not sure where your suggestions that "vote brigading" might happen are coming from, but I think it's fully reasonable to begin an RfC, NPOVN discussion, or some other discussion to achieve consensus with outside input. I am fully open to my opinion being overruled by consensus should that actually be the case; I have been in the minority in my opinions before. But I am not okay with unfounded aspersions on my editing or attempts to suggest that article content should be based on polling rather than policy.Somewhat tangential to your main points here, but I think you have either miscounted or mischaracterized an editor's actions in your point four. One editor who removed the contested term did so with the concern that it was not sourced, apparently not realizing that the article was (at the time) omitting all citations in the lead while including them inline where the statements were made elsewhere in the article. This was clarified and they were apparently satisfied with that particular issue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not intend to besmirch your character. On your own user page you specifically call attention to your interest in editing "political extremism (particularly online) and groups in the manosphere." That was part of what I was referring to in terms of "activism". Do you feel that your political interests may be clouding any of this discussion? The reason that I ask is because you appear to really have an interest in trying to out right-wing extremism.
 * I'm sorry, but I disagree with your characterization in that you were simply "restoring the status-quo" by re-adding your own content back. I feel that it is more akin to edit warring, since you were the original author of the disputed content. I appreciate your attention to detail, but my point still stands.
 * I feel that your opinion was already overruled by consensus, but that you dislike that notion. I am trying to be civil, and I do feel that it is important to point out what I see. I should note that I have never removed the content, and I have invited further discussion from others. Brian Reading (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I do not feel my political interests are clouding this discussion. And suggesting they are, or that I am an activist "trying to out right-wing extremism" may not be intended to "besmirch my character", but it is an accusation of misconduct, hence why I linked you to WP:ASPERSIONS. The statement is well-sourced and properly weighted, so why you are making this about any political interests of mine baffles me. I see now that I missed your statement above that "To summarize, it appears non-neutral because there is a lack of sources that cover the subject outside of a controversial viewpoint, simply because it is a newer topic, and we are in a weird state of coverage on the matter." What does "lack of sources that cover the subject outside of a controversial viewpoint" mean? I'm also not sure what you mean when you suggest that sources are somehow not usable because this is a newer topic—for one, LBRY is a 6-year-old project, but even if it was a newer topic, we still attempt to present a balanced view of available coverage (even if that coverage is limited).
 * If I were to summarize the input here (either in the discussion or via edit summary), it would be:
 * , an SPA who removed the statement due to the sources being "corporate journalists", and appeared to be basing their objection off of their own observation of content on the platform (which, as I mentioned to a different editor, does not contradict the statement in the article)
 * , who also appears to be basing their argument on their own observation of content on the platform, and the idea that even if it could be sourced, the existence of left-wing users publishing on LBRY/Odysee somehow is a contradiction to the statement that it is popular among the far right
 * You, who appear to believe that we somehow need to achieve WP:WEIGHT by balancing reliably-sourced statements with statements that you have acknowledged you can't find reliable sourcing for, but think should exist in RS
 * Me, who thinks the statement should remain in the lead
 * , who thinks the statement should remain in the lead
 * Would you like to start the NPOVN discussion/RfC or shall I? I am happy to discuss this further and actually achieve consensus, because it is incorrect to suggest that one has been reached. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started the discussion here. Feel free to chime-in. Seriously, no ill-will here. Brian Reading (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to make it an actual RfC or did you just want to do the (usually briefer) NPOVN discussion? If the former, there are a few more steps. If the latter, I would remove "RfC" from the section header so people don't go looking for it in the wrong place. I have no strong preference either way, just wanted to check. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Been a long time since I've had to do any of that. Please feel free to do any extra steps that you think will help us here if you think it's prudent. Thanks. Brian Reading (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As this was posted to the RS/N board, I have to ask: has a source survey been done, rather than just relying on a few sources, to make sure "far right" is not a cherry-picked term? I'm doing a sloppy Google News search, and "LBRY" gets 10,000 and change hits, whereas "LBRY 'far right' gets 100-and-some hits. Now I haven't skimmed through what the sources are, and I did notice a lot of crypto sources among them and that's going to be questionable, but assuming those ratios hold, where 1 of 100 sources mention the far right connections, that likely means it should not be pushed into the lede, but could be a subject of discussion in the body. --M asem  (t) 22:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Copied from RSN: By all means, please do. I wrote most of the article and I included just about all the acceptable sourcing I can find, but if there's more out there I'd love to know of it. You're quite correct that many of the GHits are crypto blogs. Among those hits are also articles about unrelated topics that link to videos on Lbry/Odysee but don't have any value as a source, and a handful with very passing mentions of LBRY. There are also some sources in there that I explicitly avoided using: Media Matters for America, a press release, Reclaim the Net, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's time to have GorillaWarfare removed from editing this page, as they have shown themselves to be an extremist ideological partisan who is preventing well-intentioned Wikipedia users from presenting an accurate and neutral portrayal of LBRY. I made an edit today to help improve the article and reduce the inaccurate and partisan pronouncements. Specifically, I removed an inappropriate reference to 'far-right' support of LBRY and replaced it with a mention of LBRY's support among libertarians and cryptocurrency enthusiasts. If GorillaWarfare's username itself wasn't proof of their extremist partisan ideological leanings, the fact that they include their pronouns in their bio shows them to be a far-left extremist who is driven by ideology to propagandize Wikipedia and censor and views that they disagree with. Please take a Look at GorillaWarfare's bio/user page and you'll see that they only seem to edit pages related to "political extremism (particularly online) and groups in the manosphere," further proof of ideological bias against conservatives. GorillaWarfare cannot possibly maintain any neutrality on these subjects being that they are a committed leftist with hatred toward conservatives. This talk page has mostly served to distract others from the fact that GorillaWarfare needs to be removed. Arguing with GorillaWarfare is a waste of time. It's time to take action. Thanks! :D Cameronnewland (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about my behavior, please make a report (with diffs of this misbehavior) at WP:ANI; talk pages are not the place to go to try to have an editor "removed". You can also present your bizarre belief that including my pronouns "shows [me] to be a far-left extremist who is driven by ideology to propagandize Wikipedia and censor and views that they disagree with" there...
 * Regarding your proposed wording, please provide reliable sources that describe LBRY in the way that you have. Current sourcing does not support the "libertarian" claim, as far as I'm aware, and I'm not sure it supports the crypto one either. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What sentence in the TechCrunch article supports that LBRY platforms "have become popular among free speech and anti-censorship advocates"? Please also discuss any changes to the lead wording; even if that was supported by one source I doubt it would be lead material. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your latest summary: Source explicitly mentions free speech, as well as “We want to be a space where all voices can be heard.” The source mentioning free speech, or saying that LBRY wants to be a free speech platform, is not the same as supporting that their platforms are "popular among free speech and anti-censorship advocates". Which statement in the source supports that? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will go ahead and report you. Thanks! And yes, this Talk page absolutely is the appropriate place to discuss your inappropriate editorial behavior, as shown by the above arguments you've been having with others who attempted to correct your confirmation bias-fueled partisan propaganda. Trying to deal with you unilaterally wouldn't properly address the *pattern* of your inappropriate behavior of editing the LBRY page over time. Regarding your pronouns being proof that you're a radical leftist, I recognize that this Talk page, which should be about the LBRY page, isn't the best venue to address this, but since you are pretending not to know that listing your pronouns is a sign of leftist radical politics, I'll go ahead explain it to you: when someone who has a first name that is obviously male or female, and has a photo that shows them to be the same sex as their first name would imply, listing their pronouns is completely unnecessary because such pronouns can be inferred instantly from knowing that person's first name and having viewed a photo of them. If someone goes to extreme lengths to virtue signal their support of listing pronouns (behavior which is only truly relevant to trans/intersex/queer people!), then they are purposefully signaling to others that they are radical leftists. It's embarrassing for you that this very obvious fact had to be explained to you, but since I hold no ill will toward you, I am happy to educate you on the subject. Anyways, back the the topic at hand (LBRY!): Regarding the claim that Odysee is libertarian or appeals to libertarians, that is substantiated by the title, passages, and quotes from the TechCrunch article. The words "freewheeling" and "independent" are both explicitly stated within the TechCrunch article's title, and both are obviously libertarianism in nature. I've gone ahead and made a change there, though, so that it reads 'and have become popular among free speech and anti-censorship advocates as well as members of the far-right', as free speech is explicitly mentioned in the TechCrunch article, and Odysee CEO Jeremy Kauffman is quoted as saying that 'YouTube['s content moderation] is far too strict," which, when combined with later mention of Odysee's more open/lax policies in that regard, backs up the claim that LBRY/Odysee were created with the goal of eliminating or drastically reducing censorship. Regarding my claim that LBRY/Odysee is popular among cryptocurrency enthusiasts, that is partially justified by the TechCrunch article's mention of LBRY being built using blockchain technology, and reinforced by the following quote from the New Hampshire Public Radio article/citation: "Some of LBRY’s loudest defenders are the very people earning digital money on its website. Naomi Brockwell is a kind of evangelist for the crypto movement. She frequently posts videos about tech, Bitcoin, and privacy issues to both YouTube and Odysee. She said earning cryptocurrency is one of Odysee’s main draws, and that no one is being harmed." Cameronnewland (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will wait for you to make the report to address your bizarre claims about pronouns etc., and aspersions on me and my editing, since we both know this is not the place.
 * Regarding LBRY: please point to the specific quote that supports these claims, because your argument here is original research. TechCrunch makes no comment on groups of people who have adopted LBRY and its platforms, no mention of libertarianism, and no mention of cryptocurrency enthusiasts. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the best way of addressing this is to change up the wording a bit, something like the following: "Video platforms built on LBRY, such as Odysee, have been described as decentralized alternatives to YouTube, and were built to fulfill the desires of free speech and anti-censorship advocates." Then if you want to create a separate section about your claim that the site is popular with the far-right, you'd be free to do so. Cameronnewland (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well at least that's supported by the source to an extent. How about: LBRY has described itself as a platform for free speech, and minimally moderates the content uploaded to Odysee and other platforms it has built using the technology.? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please avoid editing your comments after people have replied (WP:TALK). Regarding your edit mentioning NHPR, for one, you have to cite sources inline when you make changes. I also don't think the statement that one cryptocurrency evangelist uses the platform is sufficient to support the claim. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out that most social media alternative platforms attract a large extremist right-wing initial userbase because those are the types with the strongest incentive to move from established platforms. If you're banned on all the sites, you go to the next site that hasn't banned you yet. What matters is how the site handles this influx, and their policies on moderation which can eventually curb the nazi-tide while they wade through thousands of videos and prioritize things which are obviously illegal rather than just wildly offenive or even dangerous. Especially when the site itself offers automatic youtube channel mirroring in the sign-up page.


 * As far as political slants go, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of youtube collusion with the articles presented to try to maintain the status quo. We need to be careful citing news articles when merely covering the site is a political act within the sphere of online social media. If there aren't articles presenting a contrary opinion then they're the only ones we can cite, but it's Wikipedia's job to neutralize the tone wherever possible (without being dishonest). Conscious Code (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first paragraph, I think that's probably true. Regarding the second, that seems somewhat unlikely to me given no evidence that YouTube has been engaging in such "collusion" with news media to suppress alternative platforms. We base articles on reliable sources, and many news media (including the sources used here) qualify. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not the site has become popular among members of the far-right does not necessarily provide reasoning for it’s inclusion in the lead. Many products and services become popular among different identifiable groups throughout their lifespan as they follow the trends of a particular moment in time. It is often remarked colloquially that Facebook has become a platform for older people for instance, though this would no doubt be an inappropriate inclusion in any formal description. Given that the demographic makeup of any platform's user base is subject to evolve over time, and is likely to be increasingly diverse as the general popularity of the site grows, I would be reluctant to include such information in any lead section so as to avoid misleading general audiences and to maintain a neutral point of view. Having said this, a reasonable argument could be made for the inclusion of such information if the platform in question is either solely or majoritively used by members of the far right. In the absence of verifiable evidence to support this claim, I suggest that the term should be removed from the lead in order to veer on the side of caution.--Jorsh Wah (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC) — Jorsh Wah (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * When this fact about the service is mentioned by five of thirteen reliable sources, I think it is appropriate to include in the lead. See the discussion above and at NPOVN. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of arriving at consensus I will re-assert my preference that demographic information not be included in the lead section of a growing platform regardless of its current user base. Though a reasonable argument might be made to the contrary, it is not the argument I’m choosing to defend and suggest that other editors take a more critical view of the evidence provided by the current sources, which do not support the claim that “the platform in question is either solely or majoritively used by members of the far right”. Until more convincing evidence is presented to this claim, I refer back to my suggestion that the term should be removed from the lead in order to veer on the side of caution.--Jorsh Wah (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I recently joined Odysee because I strongly disliked all the censorship taking place in YouTube and other popular platforms. Nothing to do with the far-right at all. Millions of other people are in the same situation. When I checked that wiki page to learn more about it, I was literally shocked to see the words "far-right" appear in the very first paragraph. I instantly felt bad about joining such a platform, even though all I did was try to avoid censorship of scientific opinions. I'm sure this applies to many other people as well. So, when you put the wording "far-right" in the very first paragraph, you paint a very disturbing picture about the platform. People are joining because they don't like censorship (mainly scientific which is one of the worst kinds of censorship because it can affect your health), and they shouldn't feel right from the start that they are joining a "far-right" platform. I lost all faith in Wikipedia after seeing this. Please remove the term "far-right" ASAP as it directly offends many people who came here for the free-speech. I never felt the need to contribute to Wikipedia so badly, but this is actually harming free-speech because you are indirectly calling all those who don't like censorship as "far-right extremists". This must go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.66.186 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing that a platform is "popular among members of the far-right" does not mean it is a "far-right platform", or "indirectly calling all those who don't like censorship as 'far-right extremists'". It is a simple statement of fact that has been made in multiple reliable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are not far-right who upload to Odysee or join as viewers; the two statements are not contradictory. We similarly say that Parler "has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists. Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." For Gab, we write that it has been "widely described as a haven for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, the alt-right, and QAnon conspiracy theorists". These platforms all allow users who are not far-right, but sources have widely described the userbase that is. LBRY is in a similar situation. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The chain of thought which leads from LBRY to far-right is a bit long and suspicious, and really unnecessary. LBRY is a general-purpose blockchain protocol. Odysee is one of the platforms that makes use of it. Some of its users belong to the far-right. You can arrive at almost any conclusion by following that logic. For example, one could also go to the wiki page of the C++ programming language and mention in the lead: "The C++ language has been used among others to develop the LBRY protocol, which has been used among others by video platforms such as Odysee, which has among others a far-right userbase." This obviously doesn't make any sense, right? The reason it doesn't make sense is because the technology itself is independent of its use cases. One could simply say that "one of the most prominent current use cases of the LBRY protocol is found in the Odysee video platform". Further information about what Odysee is can be written in the page of Odysee, not LBRY. A video platform can reasonably be associated with some group, if that group makes up for a significant percentage of it, but a general-purpose technology can't have politics associated with it. You wouldn't write that the C++ language (the language LBRY is developed in) is in any way affiliated with the far-right, so why would you do that for LBRY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costas Argyris (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you agree that this is a reasonable statement to make about Odysee, just that it shouldn't be in this page. However, there is no standalone page about Odysee, and this page currently describes both LBRY (the protocol) and the platforms built atop it (most notably Odysee). I agree that if an article was ever split out about Odysee, this statement would need to be moved there. You can see conversation about splitting the pages above at . Regarding your hypothetical: if a third of the reliable sources about C++ described it as popular among the far-right, we probably would include that in the article about C++, yes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Odysee
Are there enough reliable sources to create an article on Odysee? CanadianOtaku Talk Page 22:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion, no. Basically all the sources giving Odysee any kind of significant coverage are used in this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe there should be an article on Odysee, especially since the vast majority of internet users don't have any kind of direct interactions with LBRY, but rather they interact with Odysee to view video content (the only people who interact with LBRY are blockchain application developers). The article on LBRY is important, but is more useful from a technical/engineering standpoint, and that kind of information might be better hosted on a more technically-oriented wiki outside of Wikipedia. Cameronnewland (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is sufficient sourcing for an article on LBRY or an article on Odysee, but probably not enough for a standalone article on both. However there is information on each that would be worth including in some article, and whichever article we have seems like the reasonable location. That is why I have opted to have this article include information on both. Perhaps there would be consensus to retitle and refocus this article on Odysee, with an additional section on the underlying LBRY technology and past/other platforms (spee.ch, LBRY.tv), though it seems more appropriate to me to name the article after the constant technology that has powered these platforms rather than one platform built atop it (and then redirect Odysee, LBRY.tv, spee.ch, etc. to this article, as is currently happening). My 2¢. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little biased since I work for LBRY Inc (soon to by Odysee for many employees), but Odysee the product and services it offers are unique, and many times outside of the LBRY Protocol itself, and thus enhance users experience non-crypto users or features that aren't quite decentralized yet (avenues for decentralization take time, but certainly possible. The centralized solutions allow us to test the waters, optimize, and iron out kinks before nailing it down into the protocol level. So Odysee has its own unique story and product fit, with more than enough recent references and growth (22+ million web visitors - very small percentage from lbry.tv which is now transitioned) to warrant its own page. We'll make sure not to make it ourselves, as is against the rules (I think?). Would love to provide a list of references and citations to be filled though. jiggytom talk) 04:38, 07 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll want to read WP:NORG and WP:COI. Odysee's "unique story and product fit" don't really mean anything as far as determining whether a separate page is warranted; it's a matter of reliable, secondary sources. The last time I went looking for sources describing LBRY and/or Odysee, there weren't much once you discount the coverage in unreliable crypto blogs, so unless that's suddenly changed I'd be surprised if the sourcing is there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)