|
|
|
|
|
|
by Nursie
2622 days ago
|
|
|
I think these ought to be tempered with the knowledge of how such systems invariably end up being used for the transfer of child abuse imagery, and other abhorrent stuff. I'm not saying you should abandon decentralisation efforts if that's your thing, I'm just saying don't expect the world to flock to (or praise) what you create. Censorship resistance is not seen as a universal good. > Of course people are going to get behind the idea of preventing teen suicides, particularly when it seems that the solution might be preventing a huge, corporate giant do as it pleases. The criticism is usually that not enough was done to police the harassment. Decentralised systems are likely to make that worse. |
|
|
Isn't not being controlled by the whim of a single corporation/government everyone's thing? Or the ability to be your own free person whose actions are not thwarted by a petty desire or ulterior motive?
Of course, in times of relative stability, people are sometimes lulled into thinking this is not and cannot be compromised in any way.
> Censorship resistance is not seen as a universal good.
Of course, it's a deep and fundamental issue. There are bound to be proponents of both sides with a lot of people in between.
I argue that inability to destroy abhorrent stuff is likewise not universally viewed as the ultimate evil, though.
> The criticism is usually that not enough was done to police the harassment.
You elided the rest of my argument so I'll repeat it rephrased: I think the current design of the system, where there is a very public single point-of-"failure" that is very easy to hate (big corporation) makes this more prominent.
There is abhorrent stuff printed on paper all around the world, but you don't see people claiming that not enough was done to seek out and destroy every such piece of paper. It is apparently enough to people that such paper is not very prominent in day-to-day situations.