[forum_ghost]

How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people?

First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?

Either something is permissionless, or it isn’t.

[carapace]

> How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people?

The current rise of ubiquitous surveillance is already creating a censorship-resistant system. Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy, rather than technology.

> First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?

That's a really good point: I would hope if there were more footage of civil forfeiture it would be harder to get away with it, eh? If everybody can see what everybody else-- including police and politicians --is up to then we can only get away with what everybody (or most everybody) accepts. I call it the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy".

[forum_ghost]

So you are proposing we just mail some camcorders to North Korea to end their tyranny?

[carapace]

You don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

FWIW, N. Korea is my go-to example for how NOT to organize a society. I have no idea what to do about them, and I'm grateful that it's not my problem.

[forum_ghost]

> Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy

If you have to rely on some policy - it’s not censorship free.

You propose we literally rely on a trusted third party to adjudicate things.

AKA a literal censor? To make things censor free?

[carapace]

I enjoy a good discussion, but your rhetorical style is bad.

Above we're talking about "censorship-resistant" and here you've "moved the goalposts" to "censorship free".

What's your goal in this conversation? Do you want to fight or think?