3 ms·

> As someone who thinks the world will be a far better place if we had decentralized dumb platforms Then you should be very much in favour of assigning expens

> As someone who thinks the world will be a far better place if we had decentralized dumb platforms Then you should be very much in favour of assigning expensive liability to companies running these centralized platforms. If it becomes extremely expensive or legally risky to maintain a big centralized database, that opens a window for free, open source federated protocols to fill that gap. Consider: You can sue Megaupload Ltd, but you can't sue BitTorrent-the-protocol.

twunde 7y ago
Ah, but you can sue anyone using BitTorrent the protocol and sue the creators of the protocol
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Yeah, good luck with that. If you're lucky, you'll win a judgement for both the defendant's Playstation and his Xbox. I'm sure white shoe law firms will be beating down your door to represent you in that suit.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    So breaking the law is only bad if you have lots of money? People don't care about principles anymore. Everything is a special case and you have no concern for precedent.
dahfizz 7y ago
Legally, what's the difference between all the distributed, load balanced servers running a "centralized" database and the computers which host the same data in a "distributed" platform? This doesn't solve the problem. If anything, it amplifies it. We have to either protect platforms or hold platforms liable, but making everyone a platform doesn't help much.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Are you being facetious? Are you genuinely asking me to explain the difference between SMTP and Facebook.com? If you make everyone an individual actor, then there is no "platform". Visa can ban a merchant; you can't ban a merchant from the concept of accepting a cash payment.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    > Are you genuinely asking me to explain the difference between SMTP and Facebook.com? Of course not. I'm asking you what the legal difference is between the GitHub we have today and your desktop running a hypothetical distributed federated GitHub. If your computer takes part in the hosting of some illegal content, wouldn't you be held liable like GitHub is here?
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      > a hypothetical distributed federated GitHub. God this is depressing to read. Git (not "GitHub") is already a distributed VCS. This isn't hypothetical! If you're a random individual hosting a git repo containing illegal content, you might get sued, but much much more likely, you'd just get an angry email demanding you take it down.
      - dahfizz 7y ago
        > God this is depressing to read. Git (not "GitHub") is already a distributed VCS. This isn't hypothetical! I feel like you're missing the context in this thread. My parent was giving federated protocols as as alternative to centralized platforms, and my question is what are the legal implications for me if I end up hosting illegal content because of a network sync of some federated git. Maybe social media is a less distracting example for you. Currently, Facebook is liable if they host e.g. child porn to their site. If some federated social media platform takes off where every user's computer takes part in also hosting, what happens when a child porn photo ends up on the platform? My point is that federated vs centralized is not a magic bullet for this issue. In either case, there is some platform which can be held liable for content. People seem to think "use open source distributed protocols" solves this legal issue, but it does not. > Ifyou're a random individual hosting a git repo containing illegal content, you might get sued, but much much more likely, you'd just get an angry email demanding you take it down. Is this true? I'm genuinely asking. Can I commit the same "crime" as GitHub or Facebook but be treated so differently by the legal system? What's the actual rules here that differentiates us?
mindslight 7y ago
The problem is that all these big surveillance as a service companies are vaccines for the state. Centralized data silos are setting the precedent that there is indeed a magic button that politicians/lawlers can push to control "The Internet". It seems impossible and foolish to sue a protocol, until the precedent is gradually set that "reasonable" services implement many forms of state and corporate censorship. Then when the next thing happens that they don't like, their question becomes why are "lawless" decentralized protocols allowed to exist. And obviously a protocol itself still can't be legislated out of existence. But its use can certainly be filtered, criminalized, etc. Even its development can be hampered if its cast as a "circumvention device" against status-quo censorship. I don't think we're terribly far from having to fight this battle regardless - when consumer net neutrality fails, incumbent ISPs will discover most of their market is content with a default whitelist to save a few dollars. But hastening its arrival is not good.

twunde 7y ago

Ah, but you can sue anyone using BitTorrent the protocol and sue the creators of the protocol

ForHackernews 7y ago
Yeah, good luck with that. If you're lucky, you'll win a judgement for both the defendant's Playstation and his Xbox. I'm sure white shoe law firms will be beating down your door to represent you in that suit.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  So breaking the law is only bad if you have lots of money? People don't care about principles anymore. Everything is a special case and you have no concern for precedent.

dahfizz 7y ago

Legally, what's the difference between all the distributed, load balanced servers running a "centralized" database and the computers which host the same data in a "distributed" platform? This doesn't solve the problem. If anything, it amplifies it. We have to either protect platforms or hold platforms liable, but making everyone a platform doesn't help much.

ForHackernews 7y ago
Are you being facetious? Are you genuinely asking me to explain the difference between SMTP and Facebook.com? If you make everyone an individual actor, then there is no "platform". Visa can ban a merchant; you can't ban a merchant from the concept of accepting a cash payment.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  > Are you genuinely asking me to explain the difference between SMTP and Facebook.com? Of course not. I'm asking you what the legal difference is between the GitHub we have today and your desktop running a hypothetical distributed federated GitHub. If your computer takes part in the hosting of some illegal content, wouldn't you be held liable like GitHub is here?
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    > a hypothetical distributed federated GitHub. God this is depressing to read. Git (not "GitHub") is already a distributed VCS. This isn't hypothetical! If you're a random individual hosting a git repo containing illegal content, you might get sued, but much much more likely, you'd just get an angry email demanding you take it down.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      > God this is depressing to read. Git (not "GitHub") is already a distributed VCS. This isn't hypothetical! I feel like you're missing the context in this thread. My parent was giving federated protocols as as alternative to centralized platforms, and my question is what are the legal implications for me if I end up hosting illegal content because of a network sync of some federated git. Maybe social media is a less distracting example for you. Currently, Facebook is liable if they host e.g. child porn to their site. If some federated social media platform takes off where every user's computer takes part in also hosting, what happens when a child porn photo ends up on the platform? My point is that federated vs centralized is not a magic bullet for this issue. In either case, there is some platform which can be held liable for content. People seem to think "use open source distributed protocols" solves this legal issue, but it does not. > Ifyou're a random individual hosting a git repo containing illegal content, you might get sued, but much much more likely, you'd just get an angry email demanding you take it down. Is this true? I'm genuinely asking. Can I commit the same "crime" as GitHub or Facebook but be treated so differently by the legal system? What's the actual rules here that differentiates us?

mindslight 7y ago

The problem is that all these big surveillance as a service companies are vaccines for the state. Centralized data silos are setting the precedent that there is indeed a magic button that politicians/lawlers can push to control "The Internet". It seems impossible and foolish to sue a protocol, until the precedent is gradually set that "reasonable" services implement many forms of state and corporate censorship. Then when the next thing happens that they don't like, their question becomes why are "lawless" decentralized protocols allowed to exist. And obviously a protocol itself still can't be legislated out of existence. But its use can certainly be filtered, criminalized, etc. Even its development can be hampered if its cast as a "circumvention device" against status-quo censorship. I don't think we're terribly far from having to fight this battle regardless - when consumer net neutrality fails, incumbent ISPs will discover most of their market is content with a default whitelist to save a few dollars. But hastening its arrival is not good.