5 ms·

Well, that is fair. I'm mainly talking about "normal" adoption though. Eg, for a long time BitTorrent was being branded as a pirate haven. The only major playe

Well, that is fair. I'm mainly talking about "normal" adoption though. Eg, for a long time BitTorrent was being branded as a pirate haven. The only major players i saw adopt BitTorrent were open source projects needing to distribute large ISOs. IPFS is something that they're trying to get into standards, into browsers, into operating systems, etc. If it's known for distributing kiddy porn on the dark net it will be much more difficult. I know piracy spreads like wildfire, but it's not really the target audience for what IPFS is trying to do. In short, they want YouTube, not PirateBay. Or so i gather, at least. Do you disagree?

clueless404 10y ago
If IPFS wants get gain traction and go mainstream, they still have you address the kiddy porn and piracy issue. You can't go downloading and seeding random hashes if this exposes you to criminal charges and/or law suites.
- fizzbatter 10y ago
  They are addressing it, but it's a future feature. Last i saw on Github issues (it likely has evolved since then), they plan to have a central authority which allows for DMCAs/reports/etc of illegal content. The network then propagates an ignore list of sorts (or possibly watches a central list). Any nodes on the network which abide by this will simply not download and/or unpin the data. It doesn't prevent you from downloading some kiddy porn that a stranger sent you.. but neither does the internet. This, is purely to allow law to take place, and hopefully allow lawmakers to work with IPFS, and not block the whole damn thing.
  - clueless404 10y ago
    It's ironic that IPFS plans on using a central service to censor and purge it's distributed system. Not that this central authority will solve this issue either. It just opens another can of worms. Who will review claims and reports? Who will be authorized to add hashes to the blacklist? How will counternotices be handled? How will different juridistictions and conflicting laws be handled? Who will be liable for content that makes it past the filters? Who will pay for all this? The world is a messy place and IPFS does nothing to protect its users.
    - fizzbatter 10y ago
      > The world is a messy place and IPFS does nothing to protect its users. I'm a bit confused, why is it the job of IPFS to "protect its users"? IPFS has no liability here, it's simply trying to make IPFS a law-abiding software as a whole. So it is not outlawed. IPFS doesn't have any reason to "protect" me from things i download anymore than HTTP or TPC does. It's a technology for localizing data. What makes you feel IPFS has to protect its users? It sounds like you think IPFS somehow spreads files onto your system without your consent. You only download what you choose to, just like with HTTP/TPC/UPD and the whole tech stack. IPFS changes nothing for your personal security. It's not intended to. It's a technology to lower bandwidth usage from the production of mass data in the current age. And in regards to it being ironic for having a central authority, - sure - but the problem is bandwidth that IPFS is aiming to solve is, not law and/or DMCAs. IPFS must have some seriously bad marketing (i blame the whole "good for humanity angle"), because i feel like you and a lot of people have the entirely wrong idea about IPFS. It's a technology, nothing more.. especially in it's current form. The only thing it might "save the world" from is bandwidth, lol.
      - clueless404 10y ago
        IPFS needs to protect its users, if it is to have any users. The creators of IPFS may not have any liability, but they open up its users to severe issues of liability due to the way it operates. IPFS will become toxic real quick, if it becomes know that IPFS can make you an unintentional distributor of kiddy porn and pirated content. The core problem is that IPFS' default mode of operation is actively user hostile. This is a big problem, and the reason IPFS needs to protect its users. IPFS not only leaks what you retrieve, it also makes you an (unknowing) distributior of everything you retrieve. All it takes for you to commit a crime and/or copyright infringement, not only as a consumer but also a as a distributor, is to be tricked into retrieving one hash. In conclusion, IPFS needs not only to not be outlawed, it also needs to be safe to use. As it is IPFS is not safe to use. Hence IPFS needs to do something to become safe to use, i.e. to protect its users.
        fizzbatter 10y ago

clueless404 10y ago

If IPFS wants get gain traction and go mainstream, they still have you address the kiddy porn and piracy issue. You can't go downloading and seeding random hashes if this exposes you to criminal charges and/or law suites.

fizzbatter 10y ago
They are addressing it, but it's a future feature. Last i saw on Github issues (it likely has evolved since then), they plan to have a central authority which allows for DMCAs/reports/etc of illegal content. The network then propagates an ignore list of sorts (or possibly watches a central list). Any nodes on the network which abide by this will simply not download and/or unpin the data. It doesn't prevent you from downloading some kiddy porn that a stranger sent you.. but neither does the internet. This, is purely to allow law to take place, and hopefully allow lawmakers to work with IPFS, and not block the whole damn thing.
- clueless404 10y ago
  It's ironic that IPFS plans on using a central service to censor and purge it's distributed system. Not that this central authority will solve this issue either. It just opens another can of worms. Who will review claims and reports? Who will be authorized to add hashes to the blacklist? How will counternotices be handled? How will different juridistictions and conflicting laws be handled? Who will be liable for content that makes it past the filters? Who will pay for all this? The world is a messy place and IPFS does nothing to protect its users.
  - fizzbatter 10y ago
    > The world is a messy place and IPFS does nothing to protect its users. I'm a bit confused, why is it the job of IPFS to "protect its users"? IPFS has no liability here, it's simply trying to make IPFS a law-abiding software as a whole. So it is not outlawed. IPFS doesn't have any reason to "protect" me from things i download anymore than HTTP or TPC does. It's a technology for localizing data. What makes you feel IPFS has to protect its users? It sounds like you think IPFS somehow spreads files onto your system without your consent. You only download what you choose to, just like with HTTP/TPC/UPD and the whole tech stack. IPFS changes nothing for your personal security. It's not intended to. It's a technology to lower bandwidth usage from the production of mass data in the current age. And in regards to it being ironic for having a central authority, - sure - but the problem is bandwidth that IPFS is aiming to solve is, not law and/or DMCAs. IPFS must have some seriously bad marketing (i blame the whole "good for humanity angle"), because i feel like you and a lot of people have the entirely wrong idea about IPFS. It's a technology, nothing more.. especially in it's current form. The only thing it might "save the world" from is bandwidth, lol.
    - clueless404 10y ago
      IPFS needs to protect its users, if it is to have any users. The creators of IPFS may not have any liability, but they open up its users to severe issues of liability due to the way it operates. IPFS will become toxic real quick, if it becomes know that IPFS can make you an unintentional distributor of kiddy porn and pirated content. The core problem is that IPFS' default mode of operation is actively user hostile. This is a big problem, and the reason IPFS needs to protect its users. IPFS not only leaks what you retrieve, it also makes you an (unknowing) distributior of everything you retrieve. All it takes for you to commit a crime and/or copyright infringement, not only as a consumer but also a as a distributor, is to be tricked into retrieving one hash. In conclusion, IPFS needs not only to not be outlawed, it also needs to be safe to use. As it is IPFS is not safe to use. Hence IPFS needs to do something to become safe to use, i.e. to protect its users.
      - fizzbatter 10y ago