[sillysaurus3]

Yes. And that leads straight to the question of morals and ethics, which the courts of every country are built around.

Guns can cause harm. Does information?

If someone photographs your private life and makes it public, that could be called information. But it's not quite the same: That's an action that goes against your will, and it seems quite ethical to let you enforce it.

Yet even still, how do you propose to do that? What happens when a service literally cannot delete the information? And when that service becomes crucial infrastructure, what then?

These are questions that technology is going to force us to address. Pretending that it's naive won't change that. Decentralization is coming.

[User23]

Speech is far more dangerous than guns which is why the second amendment came second. With a gun you can shoot dozens, maybe hundreds of people. A charismatic speaker can cause megadeaths and will, sooner or later, cause gigadeaths.

[joshuamcginnis]

Like information, guns may cause harm. It sounds like you're looking for an absolute definition of illegal. I don't believe that exists given the evolving nature of law and society. Bottom line: information, content, or whatever you want to call it can be illegal, regardless of the elements that make up its physical form. Who is liable in the chain of creation and distribution of the content may be debated.

[sillysaurus3]

Fine; corrected. I grew up with guns, so I didn't mean anything by it.

To your edit, you're just punting the question. What do you do when the information cannot be removed, and the service is critical infrastructure? What happens when the content is in a decentralized internet that everyone uses, and that everyone receives automatically?

You can punish the uploader, sure. But do you ban the service? You'll take part of your population with it. Most countries seem to agree that banning Bitcoin is a bad idea, for example.

So what do you propose?

[joshuamcginnis]

> So what do you propose?

I'd do what we do with every advancement that challenges are existing paradigms: study it, debate it, and seek out creative and equitable ways to deter the negative externalities. That may involve banning, restricting or regulating services.

> What do you do when the information cannot be removed, and the service is critical infrastructure? What happens when the content is in a decentralized internet that everyone uses, and that everyone receives automatically?

Even in this scenario, there is still going to be a common denominator that can be regulated to control illegal content (ISPs for example).

[sillysaurus3]

Even in this scenario, there is still going to be a common denominator that can be regulated to control illegal content (ISPs for example).

Imagine that Bitcoin's genesis block contained an encrypted image. Satoshi today releases the key, and it turns out to be the worst image imaginable. BTC doesn't drop; the price keeps going up over time. What do you do?

If you have an answer, it would be an important one.

[yladiz]

If what you’re getting at is does raw information in and of itself cause harm? No, but I would argue that information can directly cause harm when learned, which is the only way information is used (information has no meaning if it cannot be applied and learned). Example: learning the information that a loved one has passed can cause a person harm.

[sillysaurus3]

It can cause negative feelings, sure. But is that the same as causing harm?

I mean this quite seriously: Should feelings alone be enshrined and protected? It's a strange question with no clear answers.

[yladiz]

Note that grief can directly cause harm and can kill.