5 ms·
The particulars of this content (and the action by The Yes Men) aside for a moment, this is just another illustration that the current shape and function of the
by jMyles 10y ago
The particulars of this content (and the action by The Yes Men) aside for a moment, this is just another illustration that the current shape and function of the internet is highly censorable. This is a fixable technical problem.
There needs to be an easy, low-friction way for groups like The Yes Men to publish content such that no single actor can subsequently be pressured to remove it. Whether it's federated web, P2P, blockchain, onion routing, some other tech, or a combination of all of the above, this needs to be an increasing priority so that viable civic discourse can continue and blossom.
- praptak 10y agoThis could also be abused, just as the libel/trademark/copyright laws can. Imagine Microsoft kind of money behind a smear campaign with untraceable funding.
- danudey 10y agoWe don't really have to imagine it. Peter Thiel anonymously used Hulk Hogan as a proxy for his revenge, which makes one wonder exactly how often it happens without us ever knowing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-valley-billionaire-has-been-secretly-funding-hulk-hogans-lawsuits-against-gawker/#264380fa7805 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/05/24/this-silicon-...
- ptaipale 10y agoI believe Hulk Hogan disagrees about that being "used". As far as I understand, they were very much sharing a common cause.
- DasIch 10y agoThis would enable far more than civic discourse most of it undesirable. In many ways it could even hurt civic discourse by enabling harassment, hate speech and worse. In fact everything we know points to exactly that happening.
- tomjen3 10y agoThat is basically what Freenet does. Freenet is also infamous for being mostly child porn, because it is the one place where you can't find the person who uploads it and you can't censor it either.
- dublinben 10y agoChild exploitation content is an unfortunate canary in the coal mine for free speech. If a service or network is robust enough (in terms of censorship resistance and anonymity) for them, then it will be good enough for you too. On the other hand, if whatever platform you are publishing to is free of this objectionable content, then yours isn't safe either.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoI don't agree, and I don't think most people do either. The sane approach we would like is to have an internet where harmful and illegal content like child porn can be censored and the criminals behind it identified and prosecuted, but where legal forms of free speech are strongly protected from censorship. There isn't really a slipperly slope here. Very few forms of content are banned in this way, and the list is unanimously agreed upon and changes extremely infrequently. No one is trying to ban extreme-but-consensual-among-adults porn. No one is trying to ban extreme graphical violence. Etc. etc. The only area where there is a problem, as this case illustrates, is with copyright and trademarks. The correct solution to this problem is to implement more sane copyright laws, internet or not.
- jMyles 10y agoIf it's possible for the arm of the law to reach particular speech, is that speech really free? We need an internet were speech isn't protected because the government blesses it and decides not to censor it. We need an internet where the government is wholly unable to censor it. Then we'll see what actual free speech looks like. ...and the matter of what speech is permissible is far from unanimous. The list of content that various governments deem taboo is enormous and growing. In the USA we have it much better than most places, but even here we have a very robust system of denial-of-service via DMCA and other legal means, including the trademark at issue here. There's little doubt in most people's minds that the kinds of actions that The Yes Men execute are protected by the first amendment, yet here we are.