5 ms·

Not really. When the MPAA wanted action taken on torrented movies, they didn’t just throw their hands up in the air and go “whelp, it’s decentralized!“, they we

by hudon 8y ago

Not really. When the MPAA wanted action taken on torrented movies, they didn’t just throw their hands up in the air and go “whelp, it’s decentralized!“, they went after the authors of the protocol, the ISPs, hell even domain name registrars (that listed torrent websites). You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. Furthermore, some content is completely censored from torrent sites. All that to say, it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable. It does slow down that process for now, since the software obfuscates what’s going on (who’s doing what), but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually...

jMyles 8y ago
I think that in very high-level terms, you're quite correct. You say, for example, 'it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable' - I mean, yeah. That's a good starting point. On the other hand, your comment betrays some of the underlying revelation here: indeed, the MPAA has gone after the centralized components of peer-to-peer file sharing, as you point out. Yet, the bit torrent protocol remains as strong as ever (which, to be fair, isn't terribly strong in the first place). The internet has learnt and will continue to learn from this, and the next generation of censorship resistance will decentralize some of the points of failure you have listed (which we centralized in the bit torrent iteration). As for your last point: regulators understanding how the tech works is not meaningful if regulators are no longer the ones making decisions about the world. That will be a wonderful shift if our goals include peace and justice, which governments have consistently and correctly seen as threats to their existence. At the end of the day, my point is really this: even in the most wild-eyed crypto-anarchist fantasy, everything is fine. There's no need for the doom and gloom that we're routinely seeing on HN in threads like this.
- hudon 8y ago
  Sorry but I don’t buy this anarchist ideology. Evidence shows that these are the most peaceful times in human history, and governments are bigger than ever. Sure, we need to be smart about keeping leaders in check, and progress is jagged, but overall, aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Would you have preferred to be born at any other time? Because if not, then you must realize that we’re here due to our capacity to unite and form a government that on average contributes to our progress (even if that progress is, admittedly, jagged rather than linear).
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Indeed I am - this is the most exciting time I can imagine being alive. And I agree in full with everything you've said. However, I think that governments, which have been essential for many of the developments we've enjoyed so far (and this is despite their reliably selfish and monopolistic tendencies), have largely run their course and are less useful with each passing day. I am thankful even for my own government (in the USA), despite it being run in a completely childish fashion at this moment. But recognizing the importance of something doesn't mean that I want it to live forever. Indeed, I think it often means being willing to let it go.
  - mdpopescu 8y ago
    Governments might be bigger, but they are a lot more limited. Indeed, we consider the Chinese and North Korean governments to be an aberration, even though they would have been considered ridiculously progressive 3000 years ago. Also, let's not forget the 100+ million people governments still managed to kill in the 20th century, even with all those handicaps.
magduf 8y ago
>You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. You could, but national laws still vary a lot, and in some countries, the MPAA simply has no power to do anything. Routing BT traffic through those countries with a VPN makes it pretty difficult for them to take action. >but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually... Maybe, but they have no power over laws in different countries.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by hudon 8y ago

jMyles 8y ago

I think that in very high-level terms, you're quite correct. You say, for example, 'it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable' - I mean, yeah. That's a good starting point. On the other hand, your comment betrays some of the underlying revelation here: indeed, the MPAA has gone after the centralized components of peer-to-peer file sharing, as you point out. Yet, the bit torrent protocol remains as strong as ever (which, to be fair, isn't terribly strong in the first place). The internet has learnt and will continue to learn from this, and the next generation of censorship resistance will decentralize some of the points of failure you have listed (which we centralized in the bit torrent iteration). As for your last point: regulators understanding how the tech works is not meaningful if regulators are no longer the ones making decisions about the world. That will be a wonderful shift if our goals include peace and justice, which governments have consistently and correctly seen as threats to their existence. At the end of the day, my point is really this: even in the most wild-eyed crypto-anarchist fantasy, everything is fine. There's no need for the doom and gloom that we're routinely seeing on HN in threads like this.

hudon 8y ago
Sorry but I don’t buy this anarchist ideology. Evidence shows that these are the most peaceful times in human history, and governments are bigger than ever. Sure, we need to be smart about keeping leaders in check, and progress is jagged, but overall, aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Would you have preferred to be born at any other time? Because if not, then you must realize that we’re here due to our capacity to unite and form a government that on average contributes to our progress (even if that progress is, admittedly, jagged rather than linear).
- jMyles 8y ago
  > aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Indeed I am - this is the most exciting time I can imagine being alive. And I agree in full with everything you've said. However, I think that governments, which have been essential for many of the developments we've enjoyed so far (and this is despite their reliably selfish and monopolistic tendencies), have largely run their course and are less useful with each passing day. I am thankful even for my own government (in the USA), despite it being run in a completely childish fashion at this moment. But recognizing the importance of something doesn't mean that I want it to live forever. Indeed, I think it often means being willing to let it go.
- mdpopescu 8y ago
  Governments might be bigger, but they are a lot more limited. Indeed, we consider the Chinese and North Korean governments to be an aberration, even though they would have been considered ridiculously progressive 3000 years ago. Also, let's not forget the 100+ million people governments still managed to kill in the 20th century, even with all those handicaps.

magduf 8y ago

>You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. You could, but national laws still vary a lot, and in some countries, the MPAA simply has no power to do anything. Routing BT traffic through those countries with a VPN makes it pretty difficult for them to take action. >but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually... Maybe, but they have no power over laws in different countries.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]