| > Just spare us the long description of how other people are lesser human beings that should have their rights restricted for their own good That seems like a particularly uncharitable reading of the post. From the article: > Many of you reading this will not agree with me, and that’s fine. I’m not going to try and change your beliefs with this blog post. Rather, I’m looking to explain why, while I respect that others might have differing opinions, I stopped doing anything that would actively advance a technology whose ethics I question. To put it in other terms: your freedom of speech isn’t my obligation to enable you and give you a platform. The author isn't advocating making the distributed web illegal? I'm not sure what rights you think they're advocating restricting either? The article simple raises the question of if this technology would on-balance improve or harm society based on the experiences we've had with the web so far and the kind of content that can _already_ be found on IPFS. The author says it doesn't stack up for them, and so they aren't working on it any longer. They call for others to put more thought into what they work on and how it may be used. Seems pretty reasonable. By all means, disagree and explain why you think the scales are different than the author. But when you say something like: > Just spare us the long description of how other people are lesser human beings I don't know man, you clicked the link to read a personal blog. If simply reading someone's thought process as they come to a different conclusion than yours is such a sufferance for you maybe exercise some of that freedom and don't read it. As it is you're just coming across like a troll. Hacker news discussion should be of higher quality than that. |