[nine_k]

I thought that ipfs is about high availability, fault tolerance, including some resistance against addressed censorship.

It never looked like an anonymizing tool to me; did anybody advertise it as such?

[marshmellowtest]

"resistance against addressed censorship" does not work at all when all your traffic is made public.

People can be prosecuted or otherwise harassed for sharing contents on a P2P system.

> It never looked like an anonymizing tool to me; did anybody advertise it as such?

You are confusing "anonymizing" with "leaking a lot of information to the whole world".

They constantly "forget" to tell people about the huge security impact.

[viraptor]

Ipfs helps you distribute content which may get taken down. It does not help you evade local police.

For the second scenario, you want another layer which maintains secrecy. (Like the tor transport https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmYKQvBsbYrRhdaGvQXcEoSam7s5gKVYULfRgNP...)

[contravariant]

Well to be fair it would be quite imprudent to have a file system where everyone can see what everyone is doing.

In particular it's pointless to be able to circumvent censorship if you can't do so anonymously.

[nine_k]

Circumventing censorship without strong anonymity is not necessarily pointless: you can publish something sensitive from a place where you'd not be prosecuted (e.g. from abroad). The point is to bring the message to those who are denied information.