4 ms·

I'm not sure why you'd say that everyone has a forced part in hosting it, since IPFS only pulls files you request to your computer.

by atrus 9y ago

52-6F-62 9y ago
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out the difference. Because of my error I guess the question changes. It sounds like it may be even more damning for those who regularly view illicit content, but at the same time making it harder to shut down caches of the same illicit content. I recognize this is already a problem with torrents, but then my question becomes how do we not repeat the mistake? Is there a mode of resolution outside chasing down every single bearer of the node to try and remove the content?
- gervase 9y ago
  This is the same question that applies to any other medium, context, or means of interaction: who decides what is illicit? Just because something CAN be used to commit a crime (say, the expectation of privacy in your own home), we don’t eliminate it to avoid that edge case. Not all technology needs a law enforcement backdoor, in my view.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    I agree with you. Not only that, but society progresses precisely because not all crime can be caught. Ask any interracial couple a century ago, or any gay person fifty years ago, or any marijuana smoker last year. These are all things that would never have become legal if every single person who practiced them was caught right away.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    >medium, context, or means of interaction The first analog that is at all comparable is hypertext and the web interface to the internet. This is much the same except it's harder to clean up. Who decides what is illicit? Like I said, I'm not trying to start a semantics discussion. I'm not talking about morally debatable subjects. There are some blatantly disgusting things out there that have ruinous effects on people who've made no decision to take part. A platform like IPFS allows that to gain a new root, and deeper this time. Hence my posed question.
    - jake_the_third 9y ago
      When it comes to imposing your views on others, everything becomes a matter of morals; What you and I may find irredeemable is acceptable to others. There are many activities we engage in that have ruinous effects on others that are accepted as necessary or even celebrated by society, so negative effect on others isn't a meaningful criterium for moderation. Without determining who decides what is illicit and what isn't, talking about moderation is meaningless. My expectation that moderation will be done by law enforcement, as is the case with other protocols like bittorrent.
- nybble41 9y ago
  ... at the same time making it harder to shut down caches of the same illicit content. I recognize this is already a problem with torrents, but then my question becomes how do we not repeat the mistake? The mistake to avoid here would be trying to design censorship into an otherwise open and decentralized content distribution system. Don't try to shut down the content. If someone was harmed in the making of the content, then use it as evidence to deal with the root of the issue; otherwise it's none of your concern.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    >If someone was harmed in the making of the content, then use it as evidence to deal with the root of the issue; otherwise it's none of your concern. I think you're missing the larger picture, though. It's never isolated to singular instances. If the content is decentralized, then so can the problem be. You wouldn't say smallpox shouldn't be completely eradicated because "it never hurt me, so it's none of my concern." Your solution is reactive. The problem with reactive solutions is that they don't solve the problem, they can only continually try to keep up with it. Your comment inspires another question: what is everybody so concerned about having censored? It's not exactly a problem [in North America or online].
    - nybble41 9y ago
      If the content is decentralized, then so can the problem be. Sure, but the content is not the problem, and eliminating the content does not eliminate the problem. The content is merely evidence of a problem. It may even help you locate the actual parties responsible. Dealing with the root cause would be harder if the content were more difficult to find. You wouldn't say smallpox shouldn't be completely eradicated because "it never hurt me, so it's none of my concern." What I said was that "it's none of your concern" unless "someone was harmed in the making of the content". Smallpox actually hurts people. Protecting people from smallpox is a worthwhile concern. We do that mainly by making people resistant to smallpox so that it doesn't get a chance to infect people and spread. Censorship is not like vaccination, much less eradicating the smallpox virus; it's more like eliminating all knowledge of how smallpox works. It doesn't address the problem, makes actual solutions harder, and has far-ranging side effects. Your solution is reactive. Taking down content you've identified subjectively as "undesirable" is a reactive response. Worse, it's reacting to and addressing only the surface symptoms, which means it isn't a solution to the real problem, that someone was harmed to create the content. You aren't going to stop people from being harmed in the real world by redacting the evidence. On the other hand, designing a system to be resistant to censorship from the outset is a proactive approach to dealing with the threat of censorship. what is everybody so concerned about having censored? It's not exactly a problem [in North America or online]. You have cause and effect reversed. It is (mostly) not a problem in North America or online because everybody is so concerned about it. It is a problem in places where censorship is treated as a normal and routine practice—for example, China.

I'm not sure why you'd say that everyone has a forced part in hosting it, since IPFS only pulls files you request to your computer.

by atrus 9y ago

I'm not sure why you'd say that everyone has a forced part in hosting it, since IPFS only pulls files you request to your computer.

52-6F-62 9y ago

After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out the difference. Because of my error I guess the question changes. It sounds like it may be even more damning for those who regularly view illicit content, but at the same time making it harder to shut down caches of the same illicit content. I recognize this is already a problem with torrents, but then my question becomes how do we not repeat the mistake? Is there a mode of resolution outside chasing down every single bearer of the node to try and remove the content?

gervase 9y ago
This is the same question that applies to any other medium, context, or means of interaction: who decides what is illicit? Just because something CAN be used to commit a crime (say, the expectation of privacy in your own home), we don’t eliminate it to avoid that edge case. Not all technology needs a law enforcement backdoor, in my view.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  I agree with you. Not only that, but society progresses precisely because not all crime can be caught. Ask any interracial couple a century ago, or any gay person fifty years ago, or any marijuana smoker last year. These are all things that would never have become legal if every single person who practiced them was caught right away.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  >medium, context, or means of interaction The first analog that is at all comparable is hypertext and the web interface to the internet. This is much the same except it's harder to clean up. Who decides what is illicit? Like I said, I'm not trying to start a semantics discussion. I'm not talking about morally debatable subjects. There are some blatantly disgusting things out there that have ruinous effects on people who've made no decision to take part. A platform like IPFS allows that to gain a new root, and deeper this time. Hence my posed question.
  - jake_the_third 9y ago
    When it comes to imposing your views on others, everything becomes a matter of morals; What you and I may find irredeemable is acceptable to others. There are many activities we engage in that have ruinous effects on others that are accepted as necessary or even celebrated by society, so negative effect on others isn't a meaningful criterium for moderation. Without determining who decides what is illicit and what isn't, talking about moderation is meaningless. My expectation that moderation will be done by law enforcement, as is the case with other protocols like bittorrent.
nybble41 9y ago
... at the same time making it harder to shut down caches of the same illicit content. I recognize this is already a problem with torrents, but then my question becomes how do we not repeat the mistake? The mistake to avoid here would be trying to design censorship into an otherwise open and decentralized content distribution system. Don't try to shut down the content. If someone was harmed in the making of the content, then use it as evidence to deal with the root of the issue; otherwise it's none of your concern.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  >If someone was harmed in the making of the content, then use it as evidence to deal with the root of the issue; otherwise it's none of your concern. I think you're missing the larger picture, though. It's never isolated to singular instances. If the content is decentralized, then so can the problem be. You wouldn't say smallpox shouldn't be completely eradicated because "it never hurt me, so it's none of my concern." Your solution is reactive. The problem with reactive solutions is that they don't solve the problem, they can only continually try to keep up with it. Your comment inspires another question: what is everybody so concerned about having censored? It's not exactly a problem [in North America or online].
  - nybble41 9y ago
    If the content is decentralized, then so can the problem be. Sure, but the content is not the problem, and eliminating the content does not eliminate the problem. The content is merely evidence of a problem. It may even help you locate the actual parties responsible. Dealing with the root cause would be harder if the content were more difficult to find. You wouldn't say smallpox shouldn't be completely eradicated because "it never hurt me, so it's none of my concern." What I said was that "it's none of your concern" unless "someone was harmed in the making of the content". Smallpox actually hurts people. Protecting people from smallpox is a worthwhile concern. We do that mainly by making people resistant to smallpox so that it doesn't get a chance to infect people and spread. Censorship is not like vaccination, much less eradicating the smallpox virus; it's more like eliminating all knowledge of how smallpox works. It doesn't address the problem, makes actual solutions harder, and has far-ranging side effects. Your solution is reactive. Taking down content you've identified subjectively as "undesirable" is a reactive response. Worse, it's reacting to and addressing only the surface symptoms, which means it isn't a solution to the real problem, that someone was harmed to create the content. You aren't going to stop people from being harmed in the real world by redacting the evidence. On the other hand, designing a system to be resistant to censorship from the outset is a proactive approach to dealing with the threat of censorship. what is everybody so concerned about having censored? It's not exactly a problem [in North America or online]. You have cause and effect reversed. It is (mostly) not a problem in North America or online because everybody is so concerned about it. It is a problem in places where censorship is treated as a normal and routine practice—for example, China.