2 ms·

> The legislation itself is sane On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten. Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. [1] Secon

by Ygg2 4y ago

> The legislation itself is sane On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten. Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. [1] Second order effects like prevent rats/snakes by awarding award for rat/snake heads, lead to rat/snake farms. > if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.

Nextgrid 4y ago
I find the right to be forgotten very valuable in a world where everything is permanent, searchable and every little mistake will be used against you in the future. > Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Not saying it should detect CSAM, but once it is found, how does one go about having it removed? You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)? > You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other. If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!
- Ygg2 4y ago
  > I find the right to be forgotten very valuable in a world So do people with skeletons in the closet. Not saying you do, but right to be forgotten can infringe on other people's right to be well informed. This is not a hypothetical. It has already happened. > How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Using CSAM to justify a law, is not a winning strategy. It would be tedious but probably destroying all nodes. Which means IPFS is not compatible with RTBF. > If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up! That does leave state actors though.
- dleslie 4y ago
  > You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)? The impossibility of the assured annihilation of data is true of all protocols for data retrieval so long as client nodes are free and able to copy the data retrieved. It's why removal of illegal content from the internet has been an abysmal failure.
solarkraft 4y ago
IPFS already has to deal with other kinds of forbidden content. Could you elaborate on the second order effects?

by Ygg2 4y ago

Nextgrid 4y ago

I find the right to be forgotten very valuable in a world where everything is permanent, searchable and every little mistake will be used against you in the future. > Implement RTBF in context of IPFS. How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Not saying it should detect CSAM, but once it is found, how does one go about having it removed? You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)? > You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other. If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!

Ygg2 4y ago
> I find the right to be forgotten very valuable in a world So do people with skeletons in the closet. Not saying you do, but right to be forgotten can infringe on other people's right to be well informed. This is not a hypothetical. It has already happened. > How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Using CSAM to justify a law, is not a winning strategy. It would be tedious but probably destroying all nodes. Which means IPFS is not compatible with RTBF. > If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up! That does leave state actors though.
dleslie 4y ago
> You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)? The impossibility of the assured annihilation of data is true of all protocols for data retrieval so long as client nodes are free and able to copy the data retrieved. It's why removal of illegal content from the internet has been an abysmal failure.

solarkraft 4y ago

IPFS already has to deal with other kinds of forbidden content. Could you elaborate on the second order effects?