Talk:BitChute

Content uploaded to BitChute does not necessarily represent the opinions of BitChute or their staff.
I have noticed that this article has a very derogative tone and makes BitChute appear shady.

But:

Some people uploading questionable content is an inevitable side effect of having a censorship-free environment.

It's either everyone or no one.

What people do with that information is their own choice.

People should allow logic to guide them.

--79.241.193.212 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Censorship is not a shield against criticism. If a site attracts hateful, bunk, or extremist content and it doesn't take action against that kind of content, then the fault still lies with the operators and they can rightfully be held accountable (not from a legal but from a moral perspective, I know about section 230) for the content they host and the article can absolutely be critical of that kind of content. Additionally, it's not a binary choice between "censorship" and "no censorship". There are many in-betweens ranging from full on censorship as most people would imagine it (banning dissenting views) or just simple rules that amount to "don't be an asshole". The Crow (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Agreed, but the problem is that the definition of what can be considered acceptable varies from person to person. Also, maybe they keep hosting it for documentation purposes. --79.241.193.212 (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. That is one of the weaker excuses. "I'm just keeping my hate site online for archival reasons!" Bullshit, completely and utterly. 14:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess they don't want to lose their reputation as a censorship-free site, so that new users think: “if they allow that, they will allow my much less hateful videos too”, so they can keep growing. A sense of safety that one's own channel is not just deleted out of nowhere. Also, I said documentation purposes (e.g. to allow someone else to expose their misconduct). But that's just my 2 cents. Is there an exact definition/recipe of what should be considered unjust hate? Where exactly is the line between that and legitimate criticism? It appears to me that there is no clear definition of it.


 * For example: Some people consider criticizing a religion for supporting infant circumcision as hate, while I consider it actually logically justified to criticize a religion for supporting involuntary genital mutilation, an evidently harmful practice. ––79.241.193.212 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Presupposition. You "guess" things you cannot demonstrate. I use things like Occam's razor to deduce that the site is indeed, as it appears, a hate site. "...so that new users think: “if they allow that, they will allow my much less hateful videos too”, so they can keep growing. Yeah no. That kind of crap drives away normal users, it does not attract them. When your site proudly welcomes bigots, it's pretty obvious who your core demographic is. (Hint, it's bigots.) 18:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Free speech absolutism is a bunk concept. Supporters say they like it, but even the most hardcore cores tend to have limits, such as probably not complaining for getting punished for doxxing people. Literally every single community I frequent has limits on speech; every single one has a rule on hateful content. Anyhow, limits on free speech aren't a problem. Typically, those sites employ a committee of humans that determine if the content is appropriate (addressing on how every human has different ideas of what's acceptable or not). Context also matters. There are ways to criticize religion while not attacking adherents, but in some contexts, bigots can rope in valid criticism to bolster their bigotry toward a minority. This isn't acceptable, while criticizing the practice in of itself, even criticizing the religious book that condones it, should be fine. 19:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just going to add that allowing hate speech as your core appeal tends to scare off everyone except bigots. Aside from greed, there's a reason the major social media companies try to have such generic and bland social views attached to their brands. It's just good business sense. 19:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also abhor those that try to conflate the real problem and consequences of censorship (murder and threats to journalists in Russia) with the ludicrous drama of not being able to express a desire to exterminate people and threatening their existences because "free speech" is a binary I guess. People are repelled by the platform because they not only are disgusted, they don't want to be associated as you know a person from the company they keep. 19:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You just addressed a part of my reply. Also, many legitimate former YouTubers who were banned or striked without any apparent coarse violations of YouTube's policies have migrated to BitChute, including Unblogd, Hagen Grell and Charles Krüger. Also, another possible reason for keeping some of those videos hosted is for pure entertainment. Or to avoid provoking some people. BitChute does also not enforce political biases. --79.241.193.212 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fun fact, If you search those names you get some interesting results. Grell specifically has done articles for Altright.com, so... Yeah, your definition of "legitimate former YouTubers" includes at least one Nazi/Nazi sympathizer. (Edit, further digging indicates they all associate with far-right figures and groups. Grell with Altright.com, Kruger with Molyneux on Twitter, and Wolsfeld posts a lot of Islamophobia. He also bashes Antifa groups for some weird reason... So... Yeah, Listing a bunch of Nazis, in German to try to stump me, kinda not the best plan.) "Also, another possible reason for keeping some of those videos hosted is for pure entertainment." So are you ok with sites hosting child porn? How about ISIS torture/execution vids? Snuff films? Explicit calls for revolution? No? Yeah, didn't think so. Flimsy bullshit I've debunked thrice now, use it again and you're going to get accused of acting in bad faith, because you'll be ignoring the bit where I point out that that it's bullshit. "Or to avoid provoking some people." Nazis can go fuck themselves. If you're too cowardly to tell a group that's literally so synonymous with the word "evil" that they're used a stock villains, both you and your site are cowardly cretinous shit. "BitChute does also not enforce political biases." And herein you overplay your hand, because YouTube doesn't care what your views are. Your mistake was exposing the fact that you think YouTube picks sides, which is bullshit. Like so many social media companies, YouTube will host anything as long as it doesn't rock the boat so much that investors (their real audience) don't start jumping ship. Anyone they kick, they kick after the shit gets so bad that it hurts their bottom line, i.e. the only thing they give a shit about, never before. They only kicked Alex Jones for example, after he got embroiled in a lawsuit. If they actually gave a shit, they wouldn't have let him get a platform on their site, but they did. Such is greed.  20:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While enough people are making very good points about free speech absolutism and why it's not very good, I would like to point out that there are plenty of online archives of hateful content and BitChute's intended model (whilst it's clear that they're failing at it since they still directly host it) would actually completely oppose any long term archival (torrent protocols only work as long as at least one person is hosting the content) so even that defense would be useless in this case. The Crow (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do believe that the original issue was about the tone of the article, it used to be a neutral factual, but become quickly
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica level ranting/opinion piece after [|this] EK.


 * Hosting something doesn't equal supporting it, that's the point of user genertaed content, that is the point of internet, everyone gets equal feeting. Making up a new definition for these wanna be righters won't make them it. But Ggl is afraid of repeating what happened in 2016. Youtube is more convinient, so Bitchute has such high of a saturation of contrivelsal content because it acts as a magnifier for rejection. Suddenly banning porn on tumblr or mlp on 4ch had similar effect on rival places, they weren't made for those, but got demand by censorship. 84.236.12.134 (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (How many commies/anarchist/gambling/religion/BS news has been banned there?)
 * Neutrality and being factual are not the same thing... Neutrality is not picking a side, being factual is going where the evidence leads. "Hosting something doesn't equal supporting it..." Sigh... If you are a hosting platform and you put something on your front page/primary media outlet, you are promoting it, that is literally how media promotion works. When the official PlayStation channel hosted a trailer for "Life of black tiger", a piece of crap asset flip, they were tacently endorsing it. When BitChute puts Nazis and conspiracy theorists on its front page, and moderates nothing, they are endorsing said content. If you have no standards, then anything goes. Again, I ask the series of questions I asked before. "...are you ok with sites hosting child porn? How about ISIS torture/execution vids? Snuff films? Explicit calls for revolution?" "Suddenly banning porn on tumblr or mlp on 4ch had similar effect on rival places, they weren't made for those, but got demand by censorship." That is censorship. Kicking Nazis off your platform because their content is inherently disruptive and violent is basic, bog standard, moderation. Do you need a dictionary? Are you so terminally stunted intellectually that you can't understand the difference between "moderation" and "censorship"? Are you a fucking moron? 16:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "I do believe that the original issue was about the tone of the article, it used to be a neutral factual"
 * The content was directly cribbed from Wikipedia. This page on our articles should at least help you not make trite arguments like "oh this turned into a ranting opinion piece" that we've seen countless amounts of times on this Wiki for every subject ranging from Communism to UFO conspiracies.
 * Also that "everyone gets equal feeting" is a premise that's assumed to be correct. You know that's not true if you think about it especially when terms of service and community policies are a thing. 20:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey you, the BoN at the top, you say that attracting idiots are a inevitable side-effect of having "free speech". But why should they have a "I can say whatever I want" policy in the first place?--Alola, my name is Delibirda! (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Illegal content???
By what jurisdiction? Because region based blocking is already part of the site https://www.reddit.com/r/BitChute/comments/fvsmkf/this_video_is_unavailable_as_the_contents_have/
 * I think you already answered your question. Just because it's blocked in one region doesn't change that they still host the content. Also, I suggest reading that thread. There's a moderator in that thread who pretty much admits to BitChute hosting illegal content but as long as they don't show any of it in the UK, the UK authorities don't come banging on their doors. The Crow (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This article shows at least some bias.
I won't disclose my political beliefs here, but I know i definitely don't identify as alt-right. Still, I can't help but think that the opinions written in this article are heavily biased against the site, which isn't used only by nazis, as you might believe when reading about it here on the wiki. I personally only use Bitchute for Shawn Woods' MouseTrap Monday series, which includes some videos that are either demonetized or outright removed from Youtube for showing mice or rats dying to the trap (even though most of those are virtually painless and he often covers the scene with a black screen). I also don't like the quotation marks around "free speech" in the beginning of the article. That's a very sly way of discrediting something, and it's the same thing conspiracy theorists do when they want to disqualify scientific studies ("even though "science" says..."). Free speech is free speech. From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction." Obviously such a site will host a lot of extreme political views, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and shocking/violent videos, but that's just the natural result of having very little, or at least very lax moderation. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 196.54.16.223 / talk
 * Two points. Firstly, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a website claiming to oppose authoritarianism might have the tiniest bias against Neo-nazis. Secondly, You might want to re-read both Wikipedia, a separate site, and the first amendment. Also read up on the SCOTUS rulings about the limits of free speech, and a concept called the tolerance paradox. Food for thought. 23:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) But should a site host that sort of content? YouTube's algorithms may be in the wrong for removing MouseTrap Monday or removing videos that contain hateful content but are in a context of critical commentary but on the other hand, a site that has a leniency for all speech will attract that sort of stuff to the detriment of the entire community. Most sites and Discord servers do have limits on what you can say, and those limits are generally not a problem. 23:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rationalwiki is biased. :) I guess the main counterpoint to this is by comparing Twitter feeds to other sites that claim similar functions. D.Tube claims to be a blockchain-oriented decentralized video platform which also claims freedom of speech as a benefit. Similar stuff. Their Twitter feed pretty much focuses on cryptocurrency. While a lot of weird shit / scams swirls around crypto, their videos seems more "normal"... at least, closer to what Youtube offers. Bitchute on the other hand promotes a lot of alt-right / scammy / conspiracy shit in their Twitter feed. And yes, "free speech" in quotes fits, because Bitchute has content policies too. A lot of things make sense here from a legal perspective, but the one policy that stands out here is a zero-tolerance policy for "sexually explicit content", which definitely is not a policy that is present on D.Tube as far as I can tell. This sort of undermines the whole "free speech" claim, doesn't it? Violence strong enough to warrant a "Not Safe For Life" label is okay as long as it is labeled properly, sexual activities of any kind are not allowed at all. Hmm... Soundwave106 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to add that if you know that you break one of YouTube's policies and get lose monetization on that video, sure you can complain that the dometization thing is shit butt you can't blame anybody but yourself for the very fact that the video lost monetization.--Delibirda the Annoying Grammar Nazi (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ChemPlayer
As others have noted, this article is very biased. While others have given examples that mostly relate to political channels on BitChute, which may be criticised, I believe I can provide a less controversial example of a legitimate use of BitChute.

A Youtuber under the name ChemPlayer used to make amateur chemistry videos. While some of his videos may be objectionable, in that some of the things he synthesized are drug precursors or precursors to precursors, he had many videos that did not relate to drugs in any way, never actually made drugs, and explicitly refused to make explosives. He was, however, banned from Youtube. One of his strikes was a video in which he made a chocolate cake, and discussed some of the chemistry of baking. I don't think anyone here will find the idea of baking a cake objectionable in any sense. The reason it got a strike is most likely that he described chocolate cake as his "favorite psychoactive." Of course, it's not necessarily unreasonable to say that videos about making drugs should be banned, but chocolate does contain caffeine (a psychoactive) and that was all he was referring to. I don't think anyone is going to support banning all videos that involve baking with chocolate under the pretense that those videos are making drugs. I think most people here will agree that being banned for making a chocolate cake, even if referring to chocolate as psychoactive, is not reasonable.

After asking on the website ScienceMadness about alternative places to host his videos, ChemPlayer moved to BitChute. His channel resides at https://www.bitchute.com/channel/ChemPlayer/. The chocolate cake video is there for anyone who does not believe my description. There is nothing illegal about the channel. The channel does not advocate any particular political opinions except that amateur chemistry should not be criminalized, and is thus not alt-right in any sense.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily refute all, or even many, of the claims about the site. But it does (hopefully) show a positive side of the "freedom of speech" attitude there, and it hopefully shows that not everything on BitChute falls under the descriptions given in this article. Furthermore, I hope that I have highlighted a legitimate grievance about censorship or excessive/unreasonable moderation on YouTube, even among those who agree with the banning/moderation of people espousing certain political/ideological opinions (which I am not here to take an opinion on). I hope we can all agree that baking cakes is not controversial and should not be banned, and that citizen/amateur science is not inflammatory or offensive.

Sorry for the rant, and have a nice day :)
 * Well, even some Sciencemadness members noted that Bitchute had a bit too much white supremacist content. :) What I will say in this political climate, it is unwise to post some of the stuff he did on a mainstream website. This includes pseudoephedrine extraction (methamphetamine precursor), methylamine ( precursor for methamphetamine), and piperonal (List 1 MDA precursor). I personally don't agree with the "political climate" in many, many ways (Wired did an excellent article 14 years ago on the problems amateur chemists have and a lot still applies today) and I agree that much of his content is fine in ways the article doesn't cover (it's "out of scope" on our mission though :) ), but it is what it is. (A bit of criticism though on what he did though: you honestly don't need to bother with the List Is to give chemistry tutorials in general, it's easy enough to show similar O chem techniques on non List I compounds and avoid issues, IMHO. Won't be as popular, of course. :p ) The biggest issue with Bitchute for non-conspiracy content is that they seem to actively court the conspiracy crowd, so the chance of them getting deplatformed ala 8chan after a terrorist attack or three is linked to them is higher than zero. Soundwave106 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pseudo analysis
The site name breaks down into 'Bitch' (as in 'to bitch about') and an abbreviation of 'utility vehicle'. Is this an apt description of the site? Anna Livia (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Under content, should hacking be included?
It is not that hard to find videos on there that either promote or teach about hacking DDoSing, etc. But the article already states that youtube bans such illegal content from their platform, but it is to be more specific. 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)