6 ms·
I'm sorry but having the "freedom" to ignore abuse and harassment is not a solution at all. If someone releases e.g. revenge porn of you, whether or not you can
by ShamelessC 5y ago
I'm sorry but having the "freedom" to ignore abuse and harassment is not a solution at all. If someone releases e.g. revenge porn of you, whether or not you can personally see it will be 100% irrelevant to whether or not it is abuse because clearly other people still can.
You're welcome to say that you prefer these tradeoffs in your monetary systems but please don't try to say that it's somehow better at handling abuse. It is objectively worse.
- disruptalot 5y agoThere are plenty of ways to distribute and obtain revenge porn. Nothing unique and especially nothing efficient about blockchain. Blockchain isn't some special higher power, from a data perspective it's not substantively different than a server with media on it. It's not the job of the software protocol to address social/legal problems. That's the job of governments and law. If the law in particular jurisdiction prohibits certain illegal content, then the node operating in that jurisdiction will be compelled to follow it, blockchain or not. It is objectively better because one has an option and the other doesn't. What option do you have if twitter _does not_ filter out media that you deem bad? Conversely, what option do you have if twitter _does_ filter out content that is not objectionable to you?
- ShamelessC 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- capitalsigma 5y agoThe difference here is that the fundamental promise of blockchain is that there is no trusted middleman, so it is not possible even in theory to prevent abuse without subverting the purpose of the whole system. For existing web2 systems, we can argue at the edges about which things are handled correctly, but at least the mechanism is there.