[antoinec]

Maybe blockchains immutability is going to actually make people think twice before putting something online.

"Web2" makes us think that we can delete whatever we post, or what we send is not going to be stored. And we believe it because it is technically possible, even though we don't have any way to double check.

If a service claims that you can delete/hide whatever data you uploaded on the blockchain, you'd be able to verify it and not only trust them. And if you are told that using this service, there is no way to delete it, and that anybody can see it, you might avoid doing something that you'd have done with web2 and regretted later.

[qbasic_forever]

It's all fun and games until a judge orders you to remove the content, like a revenge porn photo for example. You'll have plenty of time to think about how best to explain immutability, blockchains, etc. as you're sitting in jail in contempt of court.

The web3 dream of nothing is ever deleted is going to have to hit the brick wall of reality that we as a society agree to follow laws that explicitly allow deleting and removing content. You need a judicial solution to change that, not just a technology one.

[azangru]

> until a judge orders you to remove the content, like a revenge porn photo for example

Can a judge order you to do something that is not possible? For example, if you were offering an end-to-end encrypted messaging service, can the judge order you to provide a decrypted version of a user's correspondence?

> The web3 dream of nothing is ever deleted is going to have to hit the brick wall of reality that we as a society agree to follow laws that explicitly allow deleting and removing content. You need a judicial solution to change that, not just a technology one.

Yes, I think that's why Balaji Srinivasan is talking about "network states", and "layer 0" (the ideological and legal layer) of cryptocurrencies.

[chrismorgan]

> Can a judge order you to do something that is not possible?

Certainly. Here’s a relevant explanatory comment that I wrote a couple of years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23632398.

Contempt of court is an exceptionally powerful instrument. If the law says you must remove things on request, what were you doing putting stuff in a place that you couldn’t remove them? And if the law says you must provide such-and-such information to the police on presentation of a court order, “I can’t because I designed it so I couldn’t” is not an acceptable defence. So far, these things have been flying under the radar for the most part, but it wouldn’t take much for them to be explicitly banned on the grounds that they make it impossible to comply with law.

[Jcowell]

This makes me think, how would this work with the “right to be forgotten” laws ?

[Barrin92]

>If a service claims that you can delete/hide whatever data you uploaded on the blockchain, you'd be able to verify it and not only trust them

Given that the the two most important features of a blockchain are decentralization and immutability how would any service ever be able to guarantee me that? That implies they own the blockchain, in which case it's just a slow database.

[antoinec]

Definitely, yes! That was just a theoretical example to say that this kind of claim can be proven wrong very easily and publicly (probably not worded the best way though :))

[Hamcha]

I like to think that GDPR did some good by completely ignoring technical limitations and going "no, just find a way to do it". It forced people to address some privacy concerns that no one cared about (like deleting someone's data off every record incl. backups) because it was a technical challenge with no money to make.

Web3 seems to work the opposite way. The tech works like that, so the world better adapt to it.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but for once I'm happy that it's not technicians that make the laws.