3 ms·

How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people? First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast

How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people? First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures? Either something is permissionless, or it isn’t.

carapace 4y ago
> How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people? The current rise of ubiquitous surveillance is already creating a censorship-resistant system. Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy, rather than technology. > First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures? That's a really good point: I would hope if there were more footage of civil forfeiture it would be harder to get away with it, eh? If everybody can see what everybody else-- including police and politicians --is up to then we can only get away with what everybody (or most everybody) accepts. I call it the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy".
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  So you are proposing we just mail some camcorders to North Korea to end their tyranny?
  - carapace 4y ago
    You don't seem to be arguing in good faith. FWIW, N. Korea is my go-to example for how NOT to organize a society. I have no idea what to do about them, and I'm grateful that it's not my problem.
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      > Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy If you have to rely on some policy - it’s not censorship free. You propose we literally rely on a trusted third party to adjudicate things. AKA a literal censor? To make things censor free?
      - carapace 4y ago
        I enjoy a good discussion, but your rhetorical style is bad. Above we're talking about "censorship-resistant" and here you've "moved the goalposts" to "censorship free". What's your goal in this conversation? Do you want to fight or think?

carapace 4y ago

> How do you create an “open and censorship resistant system” that blocks only a specific category of people? The current rise of ubiquitous surveillance is already creating a censorship-resistant system. Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy, rather than technology. > First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures? That's a really good point: I would hope if there were more footage of civil forfeiture it would be harder to get away with it, eh? If everybody can see what everybody else-- including police and politicians --is up to then we can only get away with what everybody (or most everybody) accepts. I call it the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy".

forum_ghost 4y ago
So you are proposing we just mail some camcorders to North Korea to end their tyranny?
- carapace 4y ago
  You don't seem to be arguing in good faith. FWIW, N. Korea is my go-to example for how NOT to organize a society. I have no idea what to do about them, and I'm grateful that it's not my problem.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    > Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy If you have to rely on some policy - it’s not censorship free. You propose we literally rely on a trusted third party to adjudicate things. AKA a literal censor? To make things censor free?
    - carapace 4y ago
      I enjoy a good discussion, but your rhetorical style is bad. Above we're talking about "censorship-resistant" and here you've "moved the goalposts" to "censorship free". What's your goal in this conversation? Do you want to fight or think?