4 ms·

This is actually an interesting idea in theory. However, from the looks of it (and I may be wrong), pressing an "I consent" button only proves that you pressed

This is actually an interesting idea in theory. However, from the looks of it (and I may be wrong), pressing an "I consent" button only proves that you pressed the button. If somebody can be coerced into having sex, why can't they be coerced into pressing a button on an app? As a corollary: if two parties did have consensual intercourse, and also consent via the app, then what's stopping anybody from falsely accusing the other of rape, AND falsely stating that they were coerced into pressing the button? Since there's a hard paper trail, this could actually lower the barrier to making a false rape claim.

valuearb 9y ago
I think the blockchain is super interesting and will lead to many useful implementations. But advocates sure like to get all whacky over it. If your partner can prove you consented at 1 am, it doesn't mean you stopped consenting 30 seconds later. This is a total non-solution for a non-problem. If you want a "paper trail" have your partner text you "I want to have sex with you right now" before removing undergarments.
- greensoap 9y ago
  Still doesn't remove the ambiguity of whether the consent is real consent. Look at the Louis CK cases, those women "consented" but only because they felt unable not to consent.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    So in cases like the Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein scenarios, the women would take out their smartphone and inform the other party to look at the app?
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Yea, neither blockchain or texting or verbal consent can solve that problem.
- darepublic 9y ago
  Exactly. I think as a society we are at a stage where we are trying to guarantee justice without the need for discretion and wisdom. And it's simply not going to work. I mean, maybe when we have nanotechnology embedded in our brains recording our every action. May as well through free will out the window while we're at it -- no autonomy = no crime.
- Nuzzerino 9y ago
  > I think the blockchain is super interesting and will lead to many useful implementations. But advocates sure like to get all whacky over it. The Internet and World Wide Web has been filled with spam and junk since the beginning. It even had its naysayers, like this one: https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/ https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-b... > "What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading." Sounds a lot like the large number of useless blockchain-based projects these days. The web also had a fundraising bubble too, a few years after it came about.
SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
Essentially it has the same issue as any other "smart contract" — the interface between the contract and the rest of the world cannot be monitored by the contract, and so must fall back on the existing legal system. This makes the "smart" part of the contract a lot less useful, so it's easier to just set up a normal contract.
- Nuzzerino 9y ago
  Yes and no. Normal contracts of a small dollar amount are not worth litigating. I have on a couple of occasions done a couple of consulting arrangements for small amounts of money, and wasn't paid for the work I did, even when the contract was signed. Smart contracts can have arbitration arrangements built into the contract, where neutral parties (a middle man with a reputation/trust rating) can make a ruling on a dispute. There are platforms in development for this very thing, with mechanisms in place to mitigate against malicious arbiters.
joshuaheard 9y ago
At least you have some proof of consent instead of just he said/she said.

valuearb 9y ago

I think the blockchain is super interesting and will lead to many useful implementations. But advocates sure like to get all whacky over it. If your partner can prove you consented at 1 am, it doesn't mean you stopped consenting 30 seconds later. This is a total non-solution for a non-problem. If you want a "paper trail" have your partner text you "I want to have sex with you right now" before removing undergarments.

greensoap 9y ago
Still doesn't remove the ambiguity of whether the consent is real consent. Look at the Louis CK cases, those women "consented" but only because they felt unable not to consent.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  So in cases like the Louis CK and Harvey Weinstein scenarios, the women would take out their smartphone and inform the other party to look at the app?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Yea, neither blockchain or texting or verbal consent can solve that problem.
darepublic 9y ago
Exactly. I think as a society we are at a stage where we are trying to guarantee justice without the need for discretion and wisdom. And it's simply not going to work. I mean, maybe when we have nanotechnology embedded in our brains recording our every action. May as well through free will out the window while we're at it -- no autonomy = no crime.
Nuzzerino 9y ago
> I think the blockchain is super interesting and will lead to many useful implementations. But advocates sure like to get all whacky over it. The Internet and World Wide Web has been filled with spam and junk since the beginning. It even had its naysayers, like this one: https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/ https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-b... > "What the Internet hucksters won’t tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don’t know what to ignore and what’s worth reading." Sounds a lot like the large number of useless blockchain-based projects these days. The web also had a fundraising bubble too, a few years after it came about.

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago

Essentially it has the same issue as any other "smart contract" — the interface between the contract and the rest of the world cannot be monitored by the contract, and so must fall back on the existing legal system. This makes the "smart" part of the contract a lot less useful, so it's easier to just set up a normal contract.

Nuzzerino 9y ago
Yes and no. Normal contracts of a small dollar amount are not worth litigating. I have on a couple of occasions done a couple of consulting arrangements for small amounts of money, and wasn't paid for the work I did, even when the contract was signed. Smart contracts can have arbitration arrangements built into the contract, where neutral parties (a middle man with a reputation/trust rating) can make a ruling on a dispute. There are platforms in development for this very thing, with mechanisms in place to mitigate against malicious arbiters.

joshuaheard 9y ago

At least you have some proof of consent instead of just he said/she said.