3 ms·
> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? If you have a private moderated forum (e.g. HN), or even a small one with only 5000 users, that's s
by cwhiz 6y ago
> How is it any less eliminative for decentralized services? If you have a private moderated forum (e.g. HN), or even a small one with only 5000 users, that's still more than enough to attract spam and trolls. So the small forum operator deletes the spam and the trolling.
That’s not decentralized. That’s just small. With decentralized services there is no entity to sue. It would be like trying to sue a torrent. You can’t.
Imagine Chase Bank vs Bitcoin. If you want to se Chase Bank, you can. If you want to sue Bitcoin you go pound sand.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoWhat is the analogy supposed to be for the moderators then? You have a decentralized service, hosted on IPFS or something. You can't sue the service, but that was never the issue. Nobody is calling for liability on AWS for hosting a forum moderated by somebody else. It's the moderators that Section 230 is protecting. And even if you use decentralized hosting, to have moderation the moderators still have to exist, do they not?
- Isinlor 6y agoThere is always an entity to sue, because legal and organized business activity is taxed and requires legal entities. If you hide your commercial activity from taxation, you will be dealing with law enforcement sooner or later, depending on scale. For example, I can sue all companies that make operation of Bitcoin possible, including exchanges, miners, individual and organized Bitcoin users. So, to repeat: Technical implementation details are irrelevant because legal business happens between legal entities.