I would say that if those members are hosting on a PeerTube controlled instance, then perhaps it is a moderation issue. If those members are hosting their own instance that federates? Well, then I think the tool is working as designed. Similar to Mastodon, federation will probably need some controls for flagging external servers as sensitive so users/instance admins can choose to avoid that content if they wish. That'll slightly fragment the market and frustrate content indexing, but... ehh, I think some market fragmentation is preferable to one central authority that not everyone agrees with.
One of the fundamental goals of free software is to enable its use by all people, even and especially people you do not like. That's not a problem for PeerTube to solve, it is a problem for society at large to address within itself.
To frame this another way: think of the criminal organizations which spin up a web server somewhere and install Apache on it to host their illicit content and advertise their services. Is Apache somehow to blame? No, of course not, the criminals are. The same logic applies here; PeerTube, as a sharing platform, is technically able to share any data, including hate speech and other objectionable content. As an unbiased tool, that's a feature not a bug.
PeerTube isn't a platform, tho. It's software and a corresponding protocol. It's akin to asking Microsoft why their operating system allows people to view csa content.
1) peertube is not a platform, 2) nothing, hopefully. If you don't like it don't watch it. There are 0 wholesome reasons to have a hard on for dictating to people what they can or can't say.
I think the answer is that they will allow them to use the platform which is equally open to anybody wishing to debate what they are saying. I know it's hip to consider everybody who does not parrot your opinions as a "white supremacist" but if you really look at the people that are in the movement you will find that they are miniscule in numbers and, for the most part, pretty foolish and easily ignored.
The thing about free speech is that it is not there to protect popular opinion but rather unpopular opinions. If it was there to protect popular opinions there wouldn't really be a need for it would it?
I read this kind of complaint, but frequent most of the services concerned and have never seen a single white-supremacist. I see open discourse much the same as HN.
The few times I've visited any of the 'chans however, it's been quite different - but curiously I don't see the same people making these complaints mentioning them.
Email is purely point to point though, it cannot be used to discover new content.
The mailing lists exist, but they are separate entities, not related to email providers or email protocols.
In contrast, https://joinpeertube.org/ recommends videos on front page, and you can find offensive (to some) videos in 2 clicks.
Are you suggesting that a significant use for email could be communication between white supremacists? It's probably less than 0.0001% of all emails sent.
On the other hand, if PeerTube is used to host a lot of pro-facist video content made by racists that could be a problem for PeerTube. It's an existential threat to the technology. If governments and ISPs see it as predominantly used for that then they'll ban it. If more legitimate users see it being used for that then they'll stop peering video content and it'll become much less useful. PeerTube will live or die by the network effect it needs to be effective. Guarding against the "wrong" users, or at least marketing it so that more of the "right" users join, is essential. Nothing about that is a judgement on the content or the users; it's the simple reality of developing technology in a society full of different opinions.
You're going to crucify an emerging technology for being where edge groups congregate, even though that's that's been the MO of the Internet since BBS days?!
Some technologies (e.g. Secure Scuttlebutt) have the ability for subgroups to exist without aggressively recommending content to every user, as an inherent property of their design; I think "should Peertube adopt some aspects of these designs" is a valid question.
There should be freedom of speech, however that needs to be balanced with the ability for centralized services - or trust networks - to form and allowed to moderate, without a centralized single government entity dictating what may be said or not to avoid potential tyranny - nor to force all organizations/platforms to be required to share everything [minus whatever "hate" list is deemed inappropriate by the government].
I do agree with Twitter, AWS, deplatforming who they want: why would you purposefully allow a bad actor (or misguided people) to use your technology/weapons? If they're not sophisticated enough or want to piggyback on the technology of people who don't believe you should be allowed to freely incite violence, then those bad actors will learn a lesson - as they seemed to - and then they will have to rally and align with those who do fully support a lack of moderation, etc. There are other problems like a lack of data and network portability laws, and PeerTube to some degree is a bridge for that, but the laws still need to be in place as a canary - if they ever happen to get removed.
The broader issue is societal - and that our institutions have been weakened by a number of factors including regulatory capture by industrial complexes, tied with the duopoly - leading to policy that kills off and suffocates the majority of people instead of supporting them to be able to thrive. Racism, as an example, could be argued as a multi-generational health whereby narratives, role modelling, overlaid onto circumstances of excess suffering, excess stress, that prime the racism to continue to perpetuate. It's also a sign of a lack of deep, genuine community and interconnectedness; we have politicians and the mainstream media and the vast majority, if not all, global brands constantly trying to manipulate us - and the whole ad industry enabling little "mom and pop shops" from being able to join in on the manipulate to sell things to consumers, buying attention for little to no effort - undeserved, unearned attention.
It's possible that if Trump hadn't been deplatformed then he could have further incited violence, more easily, and quickly enough; Parler and other forums did at least temporarily organize at least the most avid. It's possible too - though based on the Capitol incursion security forces weren't prepared and/or lacking integrity - that security forces would have been prepared to counter whatever portion of disenfranchised (and misguided) Trump supporters would be ready to escalate further violence. But the important part to all of it is that it was a wakeup call - that Trump got voted in because who slid by the control mechanisms and corridors the duopoly had managed to evolve and strengthen over the last X decades - that there are 80+ million people who aren't happy and are prone to lies, propaganda coming from and being reenforced by these various complexes.
In short conclusion, Andrew Yang's core policies seem like the new foundation necessary to counter the majority, if not all, of the problems that lead to this current state of America; Presidential candidate, now running for Mayor of NYC.
