[Spearchucker]

True. Controlling human thought at scale can be useful though. It stops my 8-y/o from watching what he shouldn't. There's a balancing act between FAANGs, and the wild west where you can go looking for things without being hand-held.

The mistake, I believe, is absolutism. If you're a Replublican everything Democrat is bad. Maybe there's a future in which the best parts of opposing sides meet to create a happy place?

Everything is a balancing act. Some FAANG is good. Some distributed web is good. Where on that scale we live is our choice. Choice is good. And sometimes, very occasionally, the illusion of choice is good.

[dane-pgp]

> Controlling human thought at scale can be useful though. It stops my 8-y/o from watching what he shouldn't.

Surely what you actually want is categorising of human thought at scale, and then you deciding which categories of ideas are suitable for your 8-y/o to be exposed to (and which categories of ideas you are comfortable being exposed to).

Allowing a few entities to control human thought at scale is likely to produce a world that is bad for everyone, including 8-y/o's.

[tomjen3]

You can't have 'some' distributed web. Either you have somebody who can censor, or you don't.

You can't have somebody only able to censor some things or only a little thing.

If there was a way to censor child porn and nothing else, I would be running a Freenet node and be quite happy to do so. Unfortunately that is not possible.

[Spearchucker]

Wasn't clear, sorry. Facebook censors things, Freenet doesn't. That doesn't mean there's no place for Facebook, and it doesn't mean there's no place for Freenet.