4 ms·

What you call a "problem" I call the fundamental strength of a network like Freenet over IPFS. If you can impose your moral beliefs on what content ought to be

What you call a "problem" I call the fundamental strength of a network like Freenet over IPFS. If you can impose your moral beliefs on what content ought to be available on other users of the network, then the network is useless. Controversial and unpopular speech is the exact kind of content that these networks must be designed to support. If they can't do that, then they fail their primary purpose.

wang_li 10y ago
For a content host (ie the one who bought the hardware, who pays the bills and maintains the equipment) any system that puts all the cost on me and gives all the benefit to someone else is useless. See the Tragedy of the Commons and Free Rider problems. I'm sure for some people the externalization of the costs and risks are the benefit. But since most of those people won't be contributing anyway, who cares what they think.
Jtsummers 10y ago
Unpopular content falls off of freenet as well (or used to, I'll admit I haven't studied it in years). If no one is requesting it it won't end up stored on the various nodes and will eventually disappear. The difference between Freenet and IPFS is that IPFS is opt-in for duplicating data, where as Freenet was not (you couldn't even opt-out, only on the total amount you would store).
rhizome 10y ago
Not to mention that content filtering can imply liability for anything that does manage to slip through.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  That doesn't seem like a reasonable liability. If I've got a spam filter that's pretty effective, but some false negatives still happen I don't see how I'd be liable for that. Filters like these are always heuristics, they're not omniscient so can't be 100% correct (false positives and false negatives will happen).
mundo 10y ago
Doesn't this "fundamental strength" also doom it to be abysmally slow? Quick proof: If there were a network like Freenet (meaning, nodes can't control what content they host) that wasn't abysmally slow, companies that currently pay to host stuff (e.g. mobile app banner ads) would move their files on to it until it was abysmally slow again.
- dublinben 10y ago
  P2P networks like BitTorrent and Freenet are designed such that the most popular content is the most replicated and therefore, quickest to access. Popularity makes these networks stronger and faster, not slower.
chriswarbo 10y ago
> If they can't do that, then they fail their primary purpose. That's not the primary purpose of IPFS, and you've been given quotes/links saying as much. It might be your primary purpose, in which case IPFS (on its own) isn't suitable, so use something else (e.g. FreeNet). Why criticise IPFS for not having the same goals as you, when you could say the same things about the World Wide Web, Gopher, IRC, email, Gnutella, DropBox, etc.?

wang_li 10y ago

For a content host (ie the one who bought the hardware, who pays the bills and maintains the equipment) any system that puts all the cost on me and gives all the benefit to someone else is useless. See the Tragedy of the Commons and Free Rider problems. I'm sure for some people the externalization of the costs and risks are the benefit. But since most of those people won't be contributing anyway, who cares what they think.

Jtsummers 10y ago

Unpopular content falls off of freenet as well (or used to, I'll admit I haven't studied it in years). If no one is requesting it it won't end up stored on the various nodes and will eventually disappear. The difference between Freenet and IPFS is that IPFS is opt-in for duplicating data, where as Freenet was not (you couldn't even opt-out, only on the total amount you would store).

rhizome 10y ago

Not to mention that content filtering can imply liability for anything that does manage to slip through.

Jtsummers 10y ago
That doesn't seem like a reasonable liability. If I've got a spam filter that's pretty effective, but some false negatives still happen I don't see how I'd be liable for that. Filters like these are always heuristics, they're not omniscient so can't be 100% correct (false positives and false negatives will happen).

mundo 10y ago

Doesn't this "fundamental strength" also doom it to be abysmally slow? Quick proof: If there were a network like Freenet (meaning, nodes can't control what content they host) that wasn't abysmally slow, companies that currently pay to host stuff (e.g. mobile app banner ads) would move their files on to it until it was abysmally slow again.

dublinben 10y ago
P2P networks like BitTorrent and Freenet are designed such that the most popular content is the most replicated and therefore, quickest to access. Popularity makes these networks stronger and faster, not slower.

chriswarbo 10y ago

> If they can't do that, then they fail their primary purpose. That's not the primary purpose of IPFS, and you've been given quotes/links saying as much. It might be your primary purpose, in which case IPFS (on its own) isn't suitable, so use something else (e.g. FreeNet). Why criticise IPFS for not having the same goals as you, when you could say the same things about the World Wide Web, Gopher, IRC, email, Gnutella, DropBox, etc.?