4 ms·

That's not going to stop takedowns, they don't care about if it's technically on your site or not.

jtbayly 5y ago
Exactly. I forget where I just saw this. It seemed like a particularly absurd example, but the examples are numerous. Torrent sites don’t have the copyrighted content either, but they get shut down all the time.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  But the torrents themselves tend to stay seeded... if you stick the site itself on IPFS and anyone in any jurisdiction can "seed" it, then it's going to be hard to kill by court order.
tablespoon 5y ago
> That's not going to stop takedowns, they don't care about if it's technically on your site or not. Yep. "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 Also the assumptions here kind of remind me of domain fronting: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-aws-latest-to-give-up-domain-fronting-putting-censorship-apps-in-peril/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-aws-latest-to-give-up-.... Basically, it's assuming IPFS will protect it from the authorities, but what might actually happen is it makes IPFS a target of the authorities. Now that probably won't happen with this because the authorities don't actually care that much about torrenting/piracy, but the error is still there.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al)
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 > The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al) That's true, but to elaborate on that quote a little bit: you can still make the mistake the it describes by making up your own interpretations of "the laws," rather than making up rules out of whole cloth. That's extremely common (especially with Constitutional law), and probably the most frequent way of making that mistake.
Chris2048 5y ago
Do they also not care whether they technically have the authority of law or not?
- imtringued 5y ago
  They can change the law to whatever is more profitable...

Exactly. I forget where I just saw this. It seemed like a particularly absurd example, but the examples are numerous. Torrent sites don’t have the copyrighted content either, but they get shut down all the time.

roywiggins 5y ago
But the torrents themselves tend to stay seeded... if you stick the site itself on IPFS and anyone in any jurisdiction can "seed" it, then it's going to be hard to kill by court order.

tablespoon 5y ago

> That's not going to stop takedowns, they don't care about if it's technically on your site or not. Yep. "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 Also the assumptions here kind of remind me of domain fronting: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-aws-latest-to-give-up-domain-fronting-putting-censorship-apps-in-peril/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazons-aws-latest-to-give-up-.... Basically, it's assuming IPFS will protect it from the authorities, but what might actually happen is it makes IPFS a target of the authorities. Now that probably won't happen with this because the authorities don't actually care that much about torrenting/piracy, but the error is still there.

Chris2048 5y ago
The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al)
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> "The underlying mistake is thinking about this like a game where you can make up rules for the government to follow." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29913036 > The "rules for the government to follow" are the laws, and these aren't being made up, but rather pre-exist (safe harbour laws) with some pretty strong backers (goog et al) That's true, but to elaborate on that quote a little bit: you can still make the mistake the it describes by making up your own interpretations of "the laws," rather than making up rules out of whole cloth. That's extremely common (especially with Constitutional law), and probably the most frequent way of making that mistake.

Chris2048 5y ago

Do they also not care whether they technically have the authority of law or not?

imtringued 5y ago
They can change the law to whatever is more profitable...