3 ms·

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 t

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.

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.