Anything else has been a failure, (((not economically viable))). This is not an advertisement, no service is ready yet. But I am willing to put up the funds for a live-streaming service that actually respects the freedom of speech & expression human rights.
It's in the process of being programmed. Zig Forums come up with a name. Don't meme it up too much, the service will not be left or right wing. It will not remove either, otherwise it actively takes a moral stance in what's acceptable. There's only 1 rule: no exploitation of minors.
Anything else is fair game - unless it is illegal in our/your jurisdiction, then it will be removed upon notification.
Features: - Anonymous comments - User registration is optional (except for streamers) - Stream ANYTHING (except pedophilia, child exploitation and objectively morally questionable stuff) - Donations (cuts should be minimal, only enough to keep service alive, not 30% like YouTube or 50% like Twitch) - TTS, Just a list, Just a list (with donations disappearing after you’ve acknowledged them/read them out loud) - Subscriptions (sponsors) - Choose your own amount (Patreon replacement, finally!) - Per-channel emojis, as many as you wish - Archive streams for up to 24 hours for free.
Philosophies: Centrist, left-wing, right-wing, are all allowed and treated equal. “Hate speech” is NOT against the terms of service and is NOT recognized as a complaint, as this blurs the line between freedom of expression and authoritarian control.
Red flag for any free speech absolutist. Its "illegal" to deny the holocaust in some jurisdictions. Its morally questionable allowing loli streams. You see the slippery slope you put us on, right? Free speech is free speech, whether morally questionable or made illegal because someone government wants to play mommy. Stick to your guns and only lay your sheckles down for a true free speech system, or have hard defined rules (I have a feeling you'll come up with a lot of rules, and find out you really dont like free speech). Until then, use p2p and decentralised services because the only reason to have those rules is to fit in the normy box, where you can be forcfully molded and manipulated into being not economocally viable.
you won't do anything you nigger
LOL. I've followed a streamer both on dlive and stream.me, both said THEY WERE FREE SPEECH (spoiler:they weren't)
After some time went on and some drama between users and the obviously rigged contest between brazillians spamming each other with points and being told he can't shittalk a tranny who is shittalking him, they decided to temp ban him (this streamer was the top streamer on that site). Dlive is just a joke.
The moment you have rules (except no actual cp) the administrators and mods will choose who and who not to ban and enforce rules for certain people and not for others; it gets slippery real quick (look at this place). Clique faggots will always appear, the main cause of D/C and abuse, if theres any rules they should be aimed at prevent cliques and be about excluding any person as THE face of the platform and ensuring the integrity of the freedom of speech so claimed by the site.
The moment you have this rule, you need moderators (paid or unpaid), which will inevitably lead to drama and cancer. The moment you suspend this rule, you will become flooded with CP, and shut down. The obvious area in the middle is self-hosted streams, but our internet infrastructure is conveniently (((asymmetric))), which doesn't really allow that. Now if there were some kind of protocol which allowed multiple users to pool their upload capacities in order to restream content they were fans of a la bittorrent for streams, that would be something of a game changer, but considering the fact that bittorrent's been out for decades and hasn't even managed to put out a website seed hosting package yet, I wouldn't hold my breath for something like that to appear.
hi op i'm a journalist writing about livestreaming and would love to talk to you about this. could u email me? [email protected] thx
Interesting that you think this world should be fair. How things should be and how things are, are two different things. But whatever right? Everyone deserves to be heard and to have the ability to tell the world their feelings and opinions on things, right? Wrong. One of the things to concentrate on is learning how the fuck to GET OFF EARTH when your time comes. Build up enough velocity and momentum to blast your ass outta here. Velocity and momentum comes from learning how to escape. Lest you return wanting to talk about your feelings again. But whatever, right? My feelies!
Nah, just ban CP. 8ch is still up despite prohibiting it.
You don't need any streams of child exploitation at all, just ban it.
So when are you gonna start asking for donations?
This in response to
No IP addresses are being logged, therefore we can't identify users based on their location, hence we have no idea where you are posting from, and therefore cannot act on it. So if you were from Germany and said the Holocaust was a hoax, yes, that'd be illegal. For you. We wouldn't be obliged to report you though, since we have no knowledge of your whereabouts.
The "objectively morally questionable" I agree, is to vague, and will be removed.
The service intends to follow the rules of the jurisdiction in which it is hosted in.
This project will start off self-funded, and then maybe skim 5% or so off donations and sponsorships to keep the CDNs paid for, and to deal with any possible lawsuits.
Instead of asking for a name, how about we go for features instead? Any good idea on how to make this most transparent?
call it CLOWNWORLD How are you going to host it? It's one thing for your service to have "free speech" it's another thing if you build it like some pleb on AWS servers.
RTMP written from scratch in C. Player will, absolutely, also take a while. Hosted in Norway in a datacenter I have physical access to.
Also, nginx is set to not log *anything*, however, when connecting via e.g. OBS to an RTMP server, you have a direct TCP connection, thus leaving your IP exposed. I'm thinking of a way to proxy the streamers IP exposed. I'm thinking of a way to proxy the streamers IP, so we don't have those either, and use neural learning for "computer-wide" bans to avoid pedos ban evading.
That's a big 'ol oof from here boys. How about maskstream or streammask? Does it sound too shady for normies to join? (Cause they're the ones who'll be bringing in donations, not you NEETs)
ok so at least you're not some JS-kid attempting this. A couple points of advice: - avoid writing a client, the browser is a perfectly good client that is difficult to lock down. You will waste precious time worrying about app-store approval and UI toolkits - RTMP is only semi-open (Adobe owned I think), what's wrong with something like webrtc.org/ that provides reference client/server packages in C? - RTMP is tcp based for broadcast aren't you going to want multi-cast or at least UDP? - it's 2019, golang has replaced C for projects like this
It is supposed to be usable. Some networks block such things. Probably going to block Tor since op ignores Torposts. Typical codefag doesn't value usability.
>webrtc.org/ These technologies are cooler and cleaner, but doesn't have mass support like the antiquated OBS.
The actual clearance of memory will be in C; to avoid any fuckups the GarbageCollector may have, but then system for handling connections is in C# 8.0 with their new async streams.
Tor users are welcome to watch and participate in streams, or host streams themselves, though with dubious quality.
Here's what I was thinking: - If I hash an IP, we don't know, and can't resolve the origin, but we can still ban it.
Bans would only occur if a child, or other person is being physically harmed. Taking heroin on stream is not illegal. It's illegal to take heroin, and it's illegal to buy. But it's not illegal to film yourself taking it.
That's a good example of why I want/you guys may want a service like this.
What would happen if Tarrant had chosen this streaming service? I don't know, we'd have to consult with our lawyers before taking any action against the stream, because it is after all freedom of expression.
If you guys have any more requests that could enhance the freedom of this service, then go right ahead.
jews and friends are going to dick around with this It's long been asserted jewtube has never been profitable. No idea how fat a ship jewtube runs but you're talking about doing what jewtube has never achieved, and nobody else either as far as I know. Basically video streaming is a loss leader, it needs a counter balance of profitable business(es)/perpetual donors. There has been alternative payment processing services already, the problem is the jew credit card companies come in backed by jew banks demanding people be non-personed or they'll cut you off from cc & bank services. Already aware of this? Either way need to deal with that eventual outcome, contributions by snail mail, get comfortable dealing with re-re-re-setting up banking as they kick you out from one bank to the next. This begets what's really needed, starting or buying a bank, followed by a credit card company. Then you can have a payment service along with any other business without being cut off. With that attack vector nullified jews will follow it up with lawfare and politics so need building a war chest for lawsuits and buying politicians. Something like so: voat.co/v/politics/3067293/17079151/ would be capable of supplying a perpetual influx of capital to float loss leaders, lawfare, buying politicians, and buying every kind of business imaginable to have alternatives for everything and that are profitable so that the ecosystem is able to support itself and the persistent loss leaders without relying on contributions.
I've begun scheming… a completely peer-to-peer service. That way we can take a few % of the donations/sponsorships and not have to pay for bandwidth (that's spread out amongst you degenerates).
Sort of like bitchute, but focusing on livestreaming. The server itself will seed the stream up until the stream numbers can sustain themselves - then simply let the stream run. Also, as an owner of another website that deals with this sort of stuff I know how payment processors are. I am good friends with one of them.
It obviously won't work. There are only around 4 billion IPv4 addresses. If you use, say, SHA256 to hash them, one would need only 128 GB to store all the hashes. There is even no need for rainbow tables.
Tarrant physically harmed a lot of people in his live stream. Your ban policy means that his live stream would have to be taken down. What's the point then?
Point #1 Very good. Now we use some other network data as salt.
Point #2 It would've been taken down eventually, once we've confirmed something illegal is gonna go on. But simply going on Zig Forums and saying "hurr durr I'm gonna attention whore for 17 minutes" is not gonna get you kicked off.
If payment processors are needed knowing how they work and being friends with one still doesn't counter cc & banks' attack. They threaten the payment processor themselves of being cut off and kicked out, which people not being able to use their credit cards with the payment service would surely mean death without an alternative, if they don't non person a user of their payment service.
An acquirer (payment processor, as you call them) makes sure the money goes from one bank to another, through one of several methods. A bank is not hard to find. Cyprus is open to anything, they're not moralfags like the west.
jews aren't moralfagging, they're jewing.
It's their book. If you're not apart of their gang, then you're unworthy scum. Same thing with the talmud(jew crap). They're both semites. It's funny the jew won't let them use anti-semitism it has to be islamophobia. Besides that both of their gangs think pedophilia is okay. Then there's that genital mutilation stuff. I'm not in any religion myself, but I'll back the Christians in the coming war.
I'm with this user call the site HoloHoax
Well, I would prefer a service that would have allowed us to see more than 17 minutes of that amazing prank video.
Sorry about the above off topic, that was meant for another thread.
what's illegal about it? and where, your response suggests you're not in the US.
We're not, but it's not about where we're physically located, it's about where the content is being streamed to. That's the law that counts.
Most likely, the Tarrant shooting would've been given a special "Are you sure you wanna watch this?" flag, and remained on the site.
The no-pedophilia aspect is pure moralfagging. We want anyone with even a hint of being willing to force themselves upon little children hung by their balls. That's the only moral qualm we have.