Dealing with horrific content or something?
and all the rest that goes along with it
Regarding Q/A section:
I see only one solution, which can be acceptable for both sides (who use service and who prevents to use service): never come with any solution, but forever make promises to make it.
Explicitly selecting “no censorship” or “full censorship” (there are no such thing as partial censorship, it always drifts to full version) in my opinion, will make damage to project.
Also I see no good solution - there are people, who like censorship, and who hates it - in any case some of them will be upset.
You know very well that’s impossible. “Illegal” and “abhorrent” are human categories, not machine categories. Any system that can filter ANY KIND OF CONTENT can be used to filter ALL KINDS OF CONTENT. Not to mention the fact that any dictatorial shithole in the world can turn any content it wants into “illegal content” with the stroke of a pen.
If you do this, your system is simply dead.
I am sure Maidsafe know this, as @Vort says they need to keep “trying”.
If anything the questions they face just highlights the game of chess that needs to be played while building something that is hard enough in its own right.
Actually I would go down the path that the Safe network is a Massive Array of Internet Disks and like disk manufacturers there is no limitations on who will buy disk space and what they store on their disk space.
Do drive manufacturers have to do identification of what is being stored on their drives they sell though the wholesale/retail chains?
I am sure Maidsafe know this, as @Vort says they need to keep “trying”.
If that’s true, you’re not helping by talking about it.
… but the real issue here is that a decentralized censorship-resistant system may be incompatible with a corporate form of organization, or even with developers being identifiable at all.
Very curious what these potential solutions are.
It would be nice if there were solutions, but one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
One note: 99% of systems, which are used in the world, are “dead” by this criterion.
99% of systems, which are used in the world, are “dead” by this criterion.
Those systems don’t have the same goals, and also don’t carry the massive overhead that those goals have dictated. Nobody is going to use an enormous, complicated, necessarily slow system if it doesn’t add value over the existing ones.
Isn’t that why we want a new system?
Sorry to say this, but I’m more interested not in SN as is, but in perspectives, which it opens.
For example, it is possible that someone non-identifiable can make fork (or new product, inspired by SN) with rules, not restricted by corporation responsibilities.
Decentralization means not only resistance to censorship, but also to accidents (like dead HDD). So I think there will be value anyway.
This is exactly the issue. Same with the finance regulations and exchanges. so now we have aml/kyc and much worse for a financial freedom system of money. Same with encryption and privacy these days.
I watch with trepidation and also disbelief in humanity at times. It is a game of chess though and matrix/filecoin and almost all projects are having to play this game too. Even talk of banning signal in some countries as well.
The question is do it (and how to do this properly) and risk freedom or don’t do it and risk jail or countries banning products. It’s a mess and I wish we were a better educated society, but we are not and we are ruled by questionable entities.
Depends what you mean by “this”. Allowing opt-in ban lists per node for instance is not that bad, allowing consensus on more global ban lists is an option. Also, don’t do anything is also an option that is becoming more difficult to do.
There are many options, but it seems we do need to think about these things and think hard on solutions as well as consequences.
It is helping, believe me
Yes.
It is not so far from already existing technologies:
Me to, the future will not be the same as today and there will be many options if we can provide a baseline working system. That may take off and be enough or a tweak or upgrade can be better, even as a base for other networks or solutions we would provide valuable information research as to what’s possible.
It is helping, believe me
At the risk of making things worse in this thread, I’m going to make this more clear, because it might be important in the long term to people who share your view.
If you create a paper trail by talking about that sort of thing on a public forum, you reduce Maidsafe’s deniability and make the game harder for them. That applies even if you don’t work for them or speak for them.
I wasn’t expressing an opinion about whether the “chess game” itself helped, although in fact I doubt that it’s viable in the long term. I was saying that talking about the game would interfere with playing it.
I am not sure what view you feel I have here? What we do know is that we as maidsafe must show that we are taking issues of terrorism, csam etc. seriously and not acting with eyes wide shut. So it’s OK to discuss it openly. Even myself I feel free enough to question many of the laws and also question any censorship at all. I think the discussion is worthwhile, but maybe in the topics/threads. It’s a tough one and the most likely thing that would cause forks. I think it’s more important than what coin is involved etc.
I am not sure what view you feel I have here?
I thought you were espousing the view expressed by @Vort, which I understood to be that Maidsafe should keep claiming to be seriously trying to find ways to address these actually unaddressable issues, presumably by preventing certain content from appearing on the network… while actually knowing that any effective measure that prevented any content from appearing on the network would be incompatible with the network’s primary goals, and therefore not having any real intention of doing anything effective.
If one actually is doing that, one does not want to admit it, or even to suggest that “one’s community” approves of it.
By the way, it’s possible to take whatever content very seriously, see it as a truly bad thing, and still choose not to do anything at all about it because the collateral damage would be worse. In fact, I think that’s the right thing to do. But the problem is that there are plenty of people with a lot of power who would not accept that kind of “serious response”. Placating those people would presumably be the “chess game”.
By the way, content shares the same property as funds: real problems are happening in real world.
Example: someone is paid to kill people and make video about it.
The problem is the money, the video, or the murder?
The problem is the money, the video, or the murder?
That seems oversimplified. Say the murder is the problem, but the person paying for it would not have been able or willing to do it personally. They had to pay for it. Therefore the murder would not have happened without the money, so the money is a problem.
As for the video, just seeing the video could be painful to some people. Knowing that the video was being distributed could be painful to the friends and family of the victim. And some people think that the the video might even encourage others to commit more murders that would not otherwise have happened.
It’s OK to say that the availability of unstoppable/untraceable money transfers, or of unstoppable/untraceable video publishing, is important enough to override those concerns. That doesn’t mean you have to pretend that the money or the video don’t play a real role in the murder problem.
Banning money and videos are like curing the symptoms.
Correct solution is to make murder so dangerous that (almost) no one will dare to do this.
But it will require interaction with real criminals. Threatening of content providers and financial organizations is much easier, because they will not fight back.