I don’t disagree with the team on this in particular. If something can be done, something should be done.
Most people hail the Silk Road Marketplace as the best example of a pure free market but the operators drew a line in the sand at the harm of children. It wasn’t autonomous, decentralized, or immutable but just because there is a line drawn here doesn’t mean the same principles of decentralized global consensus are not being respected which is what powers the network in the first place.
Really more like local consensus → global consensus → our chosen reality, which is one without the public proliferation of child abuse.
Not everyone agrees when forming consensus. It is the basis of democracy where majority rules. Not everyone might like that idea at some point if they are the minority.
By creating a mechanism to ban things like child porn, we will also be creating a mechanism for the likes of wealthy pedophiles to ban information that reveals their wrong doing. If we give into emotions to ban some terrible things we open the flood gates for corruption, manipulation and censorship.
I’m pretty shocked to hear people don’t get this. The words from David’s mouth in the beginning were that you can’t decide who gets to use the roads you have built. This talk is changing that idea.
One word from “El Patron” and you will, just like anybody else. This is not the movies.
There is no such assumption. What seems to be “on the table” is the possibility of forcing node operators to make data disappear. This should be mathematically impossible, and formally proven to be so.
People keep talking about governments, legislation, jurisdictions, likelihood and reason. That is all completely immaterial. Instead, think cold, brute force - crocodiles, if you have to.
I was actually listening to a Joe Rogan podcast recently taking about catching people like this. The guy being interviewed said they send messages by using the same email account and using a saved draft. You can also imagine a lot of the bad images and videos get sent privately and encrypted in some way. Banning it from public view will not stop the issue, it will just make it less seen. But by introducing a way to ban the public stuff we compromise the network integrity.
That’s pretty overwrought. Everybody can agree that the people depicted in CP know it’s being circulated, and that is supposed to be the main harm. The idea that further harm is an issue is at best controversial.
A few people believe that it being out there leads to further abuse of others in real life… but a few others believe that it being out there reduces further abuse in real life. Maybe it provides an “outlet”, or maybe it’s a “gateway drug”. Maybe it being circulated creates commercial pressure to produce new material for profit, or maybe making it hard to access the existing material creates an incentive to produce new material for trade or personal use. The safe bet is that we don’t actually know, but either way the effect is probably really, really small.
The first-order issue that everybody can get behind is how the circulation of existing material makes the people in that material feel.
And, OK, rape, forcible and otherwise, I’m sure. But I suspect that the number of subjects of CP who are kidnapped or murdered is very, very low. That’s not how the vast majority of child molestation happens, so why would you think it was how very much child porn happened? It sounds like you’re just throwing those words in for emotional impact.
When an issue is emotionally affecting, it is especially important to try to be clinical and not to feed those fires.
Bitcoin is extremely political. It was created for political reasons, many if not most of its users were attracted to it for political reasons, and there are very strong political regularities in the community around it.
On edit: And the Safe network making “one choice and that choice being data integrity” would also be a very, very political decision.
I think the discussion should be, do we launch a ‘freedom foundation’ from Switzerland or any other place in the West, where life is becoming more regulated (less free) every day, or do we launch it from a freedom loving country that does value SN’s freedom principals.
Maybe the question should not only be if you’d start a foundation there, but if it wouldn’t be better to move Maidsafe to a jurisdiction like that as well.
The network enables or advantages certain kinds of activities, and disables or disadvantages certain other kinds of activities. Since different people want to engage in different activities, the network advantages certain people. Since there is strong political disagreement about which of those activities should be going on to begin with, the network is intrinsically political.
Something on my mind before I leave this conversation to play out before jumping to conclusions.
Many of us are here because of David’s vision but in the past the will of Maidsafe (employees) have caused some detours.
Agree or not as regards the personal behaviors of those who control the levers, the idea of a tool, once created, being repurposed or otherwise misused for ulterior motives is not a conspiracy theory. It happens all the time.