Odysee promotes itself as a censorship-resistant video platform built on “permaweb” values — permanence, decentralisation, and resistance to takedowns. Its messaging openly celebrates the idea that content should not be removed, even when controversial, and the platform has become known for hosting material rejected elsewhere.

But when that ideology collides with criticism of Odysee’s own legal decision-makers, a very different standard appears to apply.

Harassment, doxxing, and false sexual-crime allegations are allowed to remain online.
An article criticising the legal process that enabled that harm is met with legal threats.

This contradiction now lies at the heart of growing scrutiny of Odysee, its parent ecosystem Arweave, and the conduct of their legal representatives.

—

A Platform That Embraces Permanence — Selectively

Odysee has long attracted attention for its refusal to aggressively moderate content. Researchers, journalists, and watchdogs have documented the platform’s role in hosting extremist figures, conspiracy communities, and actors removed from mainstream services.

Odysee’s defenders describe this as principled neutrality.

Critics describe it differently: a business model that benefits from controversy, outrage, and attention, while outsourcing the consequences to victims.

That tension becomes impossible to ignore when the platform hosts sustained harassment campaigns against identifiable individuals and families — and refuses to act even after extensive notice.

—

The Case of Bryan Flowers: A Campaign That Was Never Stopped

British entrepreneur Bryan Flowers spent months attempting to have a single Odysee channel removed — not because of political disagreement, but because it was used to run a coordinated harassment campaign against him and those around him.

The material published on Odysee included:

False sexual-crime allegations, presented as statements of fact

Sustained harassment campaigns, spread across dozens of videos

Doxxing, including content involving a complainant’s children and private residence

Flowers repeatedly explained that the allegations were false, malicious, and already the subject of legal action. He documented the personal impact: reputational damage, threats, fear for family safety, severe mental strain, and disruption to business relationships.

He followed the platform’s reporting process. He escalated internally. He provided detailed breakdowns explaining how individual videos breached Odysee’s own rules. He appealed to senior figures. He explained that police reports and court proceedings were underway.

The outcome was unambiguous:

Not one article. Not one video. Not one piece of content was removed.

—

Legal Gatekeeping and Total Inaction

The refusal to act came from correspondence handled via Arweave’s legal channel, acting as legal representative for Odysee.

Despite months of notice, they

did not request additional evidence

did not acknowledge the doxxing

did not engage with the false sexual-crime allegations

did not address the involvement of family members

did not ask about police reports or legal proceedings

Instead, the response focused on policy language and criticised the complainant’s tone — specifically objecting to the fact that he stated he would seek legal remedies and law-enforcement support.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was a decision.

And that decision resulted in the continued publication of harassment involving a family.

—

When Criticism Turns Inward, the Rules Change

After Flowers published an article criticising Arweaves legal representative in refusing to act — a factual, opinion-based critique of her professional decision-making — the response was immediate.

But it did not come from Odysee’s trust and safety team.

Instead, Flowers received a legal notice from Dr. Manuel Banck of KNPZ Rechtsanwälte, a German law firm.

Dr. Banck specialises in media law and reputation protection, particularly in relation to online publications and criticism.

The irony is difficult to ignore:

A lawyer specialising in protecting business reputations was deployed to suppress criticism of a legal representative whose decisions enabled reputational harm to others.

The same ecosystem that invoked “permaweb” values to justify hosting harassment suddenly demanded removal when scrutiny targeted its own legal gatekeeper.

—

Permaweb for Harassers, Silence for Victims

Odysee and Arweave cannot credibly argue neutrality here.

They were notified.
They were given evidence.
They were told about false sexual-crime allegations.
They were told about doxxing involving children and a private residence.
They were told about the real-world impact.

Nothing was removed.

Yet criticism of the legal process that enabled this outcome triggered legal intimidation.

This is not free speech absolutism.
It is selective enforcement.

—

Enablers, Not Neutral Hosts

When a platform knowingly allows harassment and doxxing to persist, it stops being a passive host. It becomes an enabler.

When that same platform mobilises lawyers to silence critics, it demonstrates that it is not powerless — it simply chooses where to apply power.

That choice exposes the myth at the core of Odysee’s branding.

—

Why This Matters

This case is not only about one individual.

It raises broader questions about decentralised platforms that:

promote permanence without accountability

host harassment while rejecting responsibility

tolerate abuse but react aggressively to scrutiny

invoke free speech as ideology and censorship as a weapon

If “permaweb” principles only apply when they protect platforms and attackers — but disappear when criticism targets internal actors — then those principles are not values. They are shields.

—

Conclusion

Odysee and Arweave claim to stand for uncensorable speech.

In practice, they allowed false sexual-crime allegations, harassment campaigns, and doxxing involving a family to remain online — without removing a single item of content.

Yet when criticism focused on the legal gatekeeper who enabled that outcome, legal threats followed.

That is not decentralisation.

That is not neutrality.

That is selective authoritarianism disguised as free speech.

Until Odysee removes the channel responsible for the abuse — and explains why criticism is treated differently from harassment — its permaweb rhetoric will continue to ring hollow.

—

Appendix: Full Legal Notice Received

> Dear (alleged website owner)

In the above matter, we hereby announce that we represent xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You operate a website at the URL xxxxxxxxxxx, the sole purpose of which is to defame our client. This website not only contains false and defamatory statements, but also unlawfully uses our client´s name and image.

In addition, they operate other websites for the purpose of defaming our client. Please refer to the attached warning letter for details.

We must request that you immediately delete the illegal content and remove it from the internet.

Sincerely,

Dr. Manuel Banck
Attorney at Law
KNPZ Rechtsanwälte