[Avamander]

it's really not. not I or anyone I know wants a web filled with malware, CSAM or spam that is difficult to remove. Onion links already being the Russian roulette they are, the tendency is rather clear, nobody* really wants that.

[madacol]

You should decouple existing from experiencing it. Me too, like you, don't want to experience what I consider malware, spam, etc.

The problem is that malware and spam have gray areas where some people are ok with it, but others don't.

We should allow all of those existing, and instead limit what we experience by filtering/censoring

In other words, instead of censoring globally, we should censor locally at a community level

[Avamander]

In theory that's a reasonable approach, in reality we've tried that on the web with all the restrictions we have. Antiviruses, real-time spam blocklists, adblockers all perpetually try to catch and block malicious actors, so far they haven't succeeded. On the local level as well, registrars have to follow local laws.

I don't think it would be any easier if you can't take any recourse besides blacklisting a pubkey there could be billion billions of. Even things that have no gray area would be nearly impossible to curtail in large volumes.

[madacol]

Most of those methods will still work under a decentralized DNS, because although it's decentralized at the global layer, there will still be centralized clusters

What you won't be able to do is remove at the root, and instead you blacklist

My claim is that under a decentralized DNS, "removing" or "blacklisting" have the same effect on what you consume because you are always in control.

The BIG difference is that, under a decentralized DNS, no one controls anymore what OTHER people consume/trust. And I am strongly against of any group of people limiting how other groups communicate between themselves, even if these "other groups" are sharing child pornography. I'm open to some data about this, meanwhile I have a strong bias into thinking the cure is much worse than the disease

[qweqwerwerwerwr]

it's not the name servers' job to deal with any of that, especially on the clearnet

[Avamander]

It's the host of those name servers' job, yes.

[qweqwerwerwerwr]

you're arguing that its yellow pages job to remove the entry for businesses that violate laws. not only is that not the case, that's profoundly absurd.

[Avamander]

It is! If a doctor listed on yellow pages is not really a doctor then they shouldn't be there to mislead people. This analogy extends wonderfully, really. If that fake doctor is also infecting people with illnesses or takes pictures secretly, then it's not only a legal mandate, it's also an ethical one.

[qweqwerwerwerwr]

and that's the authority you choose to report such a transgression to - not the police, not the oversight agencies, but the yellow pages? that's who you expect to investigate your report a make a judgement about its validity?

[Avamander]

Reporting to the law enforcement and removing a "number" are not mutually exclusive. But law enforcement has got their hands full with the more illegal stuff already. So leaving the not too difficult to detect - simple spam, scam and malware to the registrars and hosts to deal with - is not ridiculous.

I'm really sorry, but this infrastructure has functioned for more than two decades. It takes a massive amount of manhours daily to deal with abuse. How can you unironically defend and claim that a system that removes most punitive measures will be good or usable? Is it delusion or naivety?