[fauigerzigerk]

The problem I have with freenet is that I don't want to blindly store or transfer other people's encrypted data.

I think, if we take some of the powers away from the government, it is all the more important that we are able to make a judgement on the kind of content and communications that we want to support.

No single entity should be able to control all access to information, not even a democratic government. But turning the tables completely and make everyone help anyone spread any kind of information can't be the solution.

I'm totally aware of the dilemma we're in. Knowing what other people transfer over our machines puts us in a position of "must make judgement and be liable". Not knowing puts us in the position of "cannot make a judgement even if we want to".

It's just a difficult problem.

[EGreg]

If you don't store other's people data, who will?

If those people store their own data, how will you get it if they disconnect their computer from the network, or it goes down?

And more importantly, if their computer is the only place to get the data, then how do you make the "host" of the data untraceable?

[fauigerzigerk]

I don't know. I guess the answer to your last question is that I don't want a system that thwarts all kinds of social filtering or control and at the same time makes it impossible to trace people who commit horrific crimes. I think we want to decentralize social control, not abolish it completely.

[EGreg]

Well if you are looking for decentralized publishing but at the same time not anonymous, then that's what we're building!

http://myownstream.com

[Havoc]

"horrific crimes": Exactly. That was my 2nd thought on reading the headline. (1st was Awesome). We need some form of control, to prevent the worse of it. Perhaps some sort of community voting/blacklisting?

[EGreg]

one man's horrific crime against the government is another man's struggle for freedom. A tool isn't all things to everyone