4 ms·

seems not unlikely that anon p2p networks will be made illegal w/in the next 5 years or so in the west.

by dilap 9y ago

toyg 9y ago
To be fair, there is a ton of literally harmful material in some “free” networks - stuff that was made by hurting vulnerable people (often minors) or that will directly enable actions aimed at hurting others. This crap actively looks for the less-policeable corners of our marvellous communication networks, burrows, and then spawns to the four corners of the world. Just washing our hands of these items, writing them down as the cost of freedom, is not going to cut it.
- dilap 9y ago
  yeah, that's how the argument will go. it's just a trade-off. do you value freedom or security? a side-effect of security is you're also creating the conditions for tyranny. choose wisely!
- mindslight 9y ago
  What is going to cut it? I think the onus is on the censors to detail the full technical extent of their plan, rather than to just keep repeating "not enough". Because the way I see it, as long as there exist pedophiles who aren't lucky enough to work at the government agencies charged with cataloging child porn, there will be a desire to trade in it. And reducing its availability drives up the price, and thus increases the demand to make more. My personal solution is to just not look at it, but I understand this may be hard for some in the same way that it's hard for congresscritters to keep to themselves in public bathrooms.
  - blitmap 9y ago
    I wish we were combating child porn by offering anonymous therapy for those who are attracted to minors.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > What is going to cut it? I don't know. I'm just saying that free-for-all is never going to be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of any population, when it comes to certain topics. If the anonymous p2p networks cannot find a solution (any solution) that can keep this stuff somewhat at bay, they will be ostracized. Ideally, I should be able to run a decentralized facebook-like pod (or any other IM/social/sharing system) with a good degree of certainty that unsavoury material of this or that type will not end up on my pod. The Powers That Be should be able to somehow trust that this is indeed the case without being able to read all content. If we had a system like that, we could clearly decouple the discussion on what is or is not "unacceptable material" from the discussion on whether a given communication protocol is bad in itself. At the moment, authorities can just say that p2p networks are full of bad stuff so they are bad and should be banned. You cannot fight that charge without showing some effort trying to get rid of bad stuff. Once you have something like that, even very rough and automated, it becomes easier to say "no, I won't ban X from my network because I am certain that X is legal[1]" or "no, you cannot ban me for Y because I'm sure Y is not on my network". [1] or should be legal, which is basically equivalent for civil disobedience. If you are planning armed resistance, nothing will ever satisfy a censor, and you have very different requirements from regular people.
    - rpvnwnkl 9y ago
      Do you think moderators of content could be employed to help catalogue and remove illegal content? It seems to work well on the websites that take the effort seriously. This might provide employment for the many people, often referenced by users on this site, who may be losing work in the near future due to technology's advances. The moderators would be like quasi-lawyers: able to interpret content and assess the legality in a tentative way... to be further decided through some other formal review process. Of course, anyone could submit content for review, as well. I could imagine whole industries being built around this task, especially if it's so important to everyone. Just because it's a lot of work, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

seems not unlikely that anon p2p networks will be made illegal w/in the next 5 years or so in the west.

by dilap 9y ago

seems not unlikely that anon p2p networks will be made illegal w/in the next 5 years or so in the west.

toyg 9y ago

To be fair, there is a ton of literally harmful material in some “free” networks - stuff that was made by hurting vulnerable people (often minors) or that will directly enable actions aimed at hurting others. This crap actively looks for the less-policeable corners of our marvellous communication networks, burrows, and then spawns to the four corners of the world. Just washing our hands of these items, writing them down as the cost of freedom, is not going to cut it.

dilap 9y ago
yeah, that's how the argument will go. it's just a trade-off. do you value freedom or security? a side-effect of security is you're also creating the conditions for tyranny. choose wisely!
mindslight 9y ago
What is going to cut it? I think the onus is on the censors to detail the full technical extent of their plan, rather than to just keep repeating "not enough". Because the way I see it, as long as there exist pedophiles who aren't lucky enough to work at the government agencies charged with cataloging child porn, there will be a desire to trade in it. And reducing its availability drives up the price, and thus increases the demand to make more. My personal solution is to just not look at it, but I understand this may be hard for some in the same way that it's hard for congresscritters to keep to themselves in public bathrooms.
- blitmap 9y ago
  I wish we were combating child porn by offering anonymous therapy for those who are attracted to minors.
- toyg 9y ago
  > What is going to cut it? I don't know. I'm just saying that free-for-all is never going to be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of any population, when it comes to certain topics. If the anonymous p2p networks cannot find a solution (any solution) that can keep this stuff somewhat at bay, they will be ostracized. Ideally, I should be able to run a decentralized facebook-like pod (or any other IM/social/sharing system) with a good degree of certainty that unsavoury material of this or that type will not end up on my pod. The Powers That Be should be able to somehow trust that this is indeed the case without being able to read all content. If we had a system like that, we could clearly decouple the discussion on what is or is not "unacceptable material" from the discussion on whether a given communication protocol is bad in itself. At the moment, authorities can just say that p2p networks are full of bad stuff so they are bad and should be banned. You cannot fight that charge without showing some effort trying to get rid of bad stuff. Once you have something like that, even very rough and automated, it becomes easier to say "no, I won't ban X from my network because I am certain that X is legal[1]" or "no, you cannot ban me for Y because I'm sure Y is not on my network". [1] or should be legal, which is basically equivalent for civil disobedience. If you are planning armed resistance, nothing will ever satisfy a censor, and you have very different requirements from regular people.
  - rpvnwnkl 9y ago
    Do you think moderators of content could be employed to help catalogue and remove illegal content? It seems to work well on the websites that take the effort seriously. This might provide employment for the many people, often referenced by users on this site, who may be losing work in the near future due to technology's advances. The moderators would be like quasi-lawyers: able to interpret content and assess the legality in a tentative way... to be further decided through some other formal review process. Of course, anyone could submit content for review, as well. I could imagine whole industries being built around this task, especially if it's so important to everyone. Just because it's a lot of work, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.