4 ms·
Your plan is to create a centralized list of things "good and moral people" should avoid, that only good and moral people will opt-into? That's a funny strategy
by smokeyj 9y ago
Your plan is to create a centralized list of things "good and moral people" should avoid, that only good and moral people will opt-into? That's a funny strategy for several reasons.. First - do you really want "bad guys" to have a list of all the content they shouldn't have? Might as well call it do-not-read.txt. Secondly, if the system is opt-in for "good and moral people", will that really do anything to stop the distribution of content on do-not-read.txt among "bad and immoral" group?
I'm personally glad that the fathers of the internet had better things to do than moralizing legality.
- hobofan 9y agoIts not about "good and moral" vs "bad and immoral", but "legal" vs "illegal". Blacklists are not currently implemented in IPFS but one imagined a solution, where people opt-in to their e.g. state-supplied blacklist to prevent run-ins with the government, which could say "if you aid criminals by providing them with illegal content, we will hold you accountable for it". In the end, it is probably nothing more than a facade to appease governments that in the end will come up with something similar ineffective.
- kofejnik 9y agoyou mean, illegal in Russia? Or Uganda?
- hobofan 9y agoDepends on which risks/rewards you want to take on, just like today. If you live in China, you might want to adhere to the Chinese blacklist, but outside of it, you probably don't care, since the Chinese government also doesn't seem to care _that_ much.
- smokeyj 9y ago> since the Chinese government also doesn't seem to care _that_ much Sounds like the opposite of something most would consider "important".