3 ms·

I didn't think I was convincing anyone to run anything, just explaining that this approach wouldn't work. Moreover, there's always a possibility that you, a “de

I didn't think I was convincing anyone to run anything, just explaining that this approach wouldn't work. Moreover, there's always a possibility that you, a “decent person” can become a “criminal” one day, and, counter-intuitively, that's when you want the laws to work and be equal for everyone, not when you're a “decent person”. But it doesn't need to be so dramatic. Like most of the people on this site, you probably use more or less cheap broadband or mobile internet at home. The reason it's much cheaper than a dedicated line to your location is because a lot of people in your area want an internet connection, too (and they don't use it fully, or all at the same time, etc.), so there's a great deal of ISP infrastructure sharing. So you help your neighbor in having a cheap internet access, and your neighbor helps you. What if one of your neighbors is a maniac who streams killing people, or a botnet owner, or a military drone operator working from home, or just a domestic abuser? Have you asked your provider to only join the “decent people” network? If not, you are actively helping bad people right now.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> What if one of your neighbors is a maniac who streams killing people, or a botnet owner, or a military drone operator working from home, or just a domestic abuser? Have you asked your provider to only join the “decent people” network? If not, you are actively helping bad people right now. But they weren't asking about whether the network had some users doing "super-illegal" things. They asked if it was roughly all the users. So that analogy isn't even close to fitting.
- ogurechny 5y ago
  You mean that helping some cold-blooded killers is okay, but after their percentage reaches some tipping point, it becomes too much of a headache? I can't say that I agree with that moral. One of the central ideas of Freenet (and some other projects) is that you don't know what exactly you transfer. Moreover, if you could discern “good content” from “bad content” in some general or specific fashion, you would instantly be forced to do so according to numerous laws. If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that).
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > You mean that helping some cold-blooded killers is okay, but after their percentage reaches some tipping point, it becomes too much of a headache? I can't say that I agree with that moral. Participating in society inevitably helps some cold-blooded killers. But I wouldn't deliberately help out a group made of cold-blooded killers. So I think that moral makes sense. Which part would you disagree with? > If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that). Well, if I was strongly anti-piracy I sure wouldn't run a bittorrent client that helps relay anonymous chunks between other users. I don't think we need to involve legality in this discussion, that just complicates things.
    - ogurechny 5y ago
      No, the fate of bittorrent software is set in stone with that reasoning. “It generates how many terabits of piracy transfers per second globally? Across how many pirated works?” BAM! “Authors of torrent clients provide tools almost exclusively used by pirates. Stop or go to jail!” And if you really want that Ubuntu image, wait until your local Linux user group gets the package by international mail. Because your convenience is nothing compared to all that piracy, right? Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much. Uh, no. I just think it sometimes matters what the percent is. And I'm curious what the percent is. I even ran a pretty stable freenet node at one point, thank you very much. And you didn't really explain where your moral reasoning differs from mine. I'm not discussing what should be legal...

Dylan16807 5y ago

> What if one of your neighbors is a maniac who streams killing people, or a botnet owner, or a military drone operator working from home, or just a domestic abuser? Have you asked your provider to only join the “decent people” network? If not, you are actively helping bad people right now. But they weren't asking about whether the network had some users doing "super-illegal" things. They asked if it was roughly all the users. So that analogy isn't even close to fitting.

ogurechny 5y ago
You mean that helping some cold-blooded killers is okay, but after their percentage reaches some tipping point, it becomes too much of a headache? I can't say that I agree with that moral. One of the central ideas of Freenet (and some other projects) is that you don't know what exactly you transfer. Moreover, if you could discern “good content” from “bad content” in some general or specific fashion, you would instantly be forced to do so according to numerous laws. If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that).
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > You mean that helping some cold-blooded killers is okay, but after their percentage reaches some tipping point, it becomes too much of a headache? I can't say that I agree with that moral. Participating in society inevitably helps some cold-blooded killers. But I wouldn't deliberately help out a group made of cold-blooded killers. So I think that moral makes sense. Which part would you disagree with? > If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that). Well, if I was strongly anti-piracy I sure wouldn't run a bittorrent client that helps relay anonymous chunks between other users. I don't think we need to involve legality in this discussion, that just complicates things.
  - ogurechny 5y ago
    No, the fate of bittorrent software is set in stone with that reasoning. “It generates how many terabits of piracy transfers per second globally? Across how many pirated works?” BAM! “Authors of torrent clients provide tools almost exclusively used by pirates. Stop or go to jail!” And if you really want that Ubuntu image, wait until your local Linux user group gets the package by international mail. Because your convenience is nothing compared to all that piracy, right? Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much. Uh, no. I just think it sometimes matters what the percent is. And I'm curious what the percent is. I even ran a pretty stable freenet node at one point, thank you very much. And you didn't really explain where your moral reasoning differs from mine. I'm not discussing what should be legal...