3 ms·

on the contrary, that's the thing we want the most. having no way to curb abuse is what gave Tor a few orders of magnitude more adoption than the other alternat

on the contrary, that's the thing we want the most. having no way to curb abuse is what gave Tor a few orders of magnitude more adoption than the other alternative internets. having no way to curb abuse is what made crypto market what it is.

Avamander 4y ago
it's really not. not I or anyone I know wants a web filled with malware, CSAM or spam that is difficult to remove. Onion links already being the Russian roulette they are, the tendency is rather clear, nobody* really wants that.
- qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
  it's not the name servers' job to deal with any of that, especially on the clearnet
  - Avamander 4y ago
    It's the host of those name servers' job, yes.
    - qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
      you're arguing that its yellow pages job to remove the entry for businesses that violate laws. not only is that not the case, that's profoundly absurd.
      - Avamander 4y ago
        It is! If a doctor listed on yellow pages is not really a doctor then they shouldn't be there to mislead people. This analogy extends wonderfully, really. If that fake doctor is also infecting people with illnesses or takes pictures secretly, then it's not only a legal mandate, it's also an ethical one.
        qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
        and that's the authority you choose to report such a transgression to - not the police, not the oversight agencies, but the yellow pages? that's who you expect to investigate your report a make a judgement about its validity?
        Avamander 4y ago
        Reporting to the law enforcement and removing a "number" are not mutually exclusive. But law enforcement has got their hands full with the more illegal stuff already. So leaving the not too difficult to detect - simple spam, scam and malware to the registrars and hosts to deal with - is not ridiculous. I'm really sorry, but this infrastructure has functioned for more than two decades. It takes a massive amount of manhours daily to deal with abuse. How can you unironically defend and claim that a system that removes most punitive measures will be good or usable? Is it delusion or naivety?
        qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
        it is an observation. the two systems without punitive measures I have provided as an example in my original comment - crypto and tor - have been doing alright for more than a decade.
- madacol 4y ago
  You should decouple existing from experiencing it. Me too, like you, don't want to experience what I consider malware, spam, etc. The problem is that malware and spam have gray areas where some people are ok with it, but others don't. We should allow all of those existing, and instead limit what we experience by filtering/censoring In other words, instead of censoring globally, we should censor locally at a community level
  - Avamander 4y ago
    In theory that's a reasonable approach, in reality we've tried that on the web with all the restrictions we have. Antiviruses, real-time spam blocklists, adblockers all perpetually try to catch and block malicious actors, so far they haven't succeeded. On the local level as well, registrars have to follow local laws. I don't think it would be any easier if you can't take any recourse besides blacklisting a pubkey there could be billion billions of. Even things that have no gray area would be nearly impossible to curtail in large volumes.
    - madacol 4y ago
      Most of those methods will still work under a decentralized DNS, because although it's decentralized at the global layer, there will still be centralized clusters What you won't be able to do is remove at the root, and instead you blacklist My claim is that under a decentralized DNS, "removing" or "blacklisting" have the same effect on what you consume because you are always in control. The BIG difference is that, under a decentralized DNS, no one controls anymore what OTHER people consume/trust. And I am strongly against of any group of people limiting how other groups communicate between themselves, even if these "other groups" are sharing child pornography. I'm open to some data about this, meanwhile I have a strong bias into thinking the cure is much worse than the disease

Avamander 4y ago

it's really not. not I or anyone I know wants a web filled with malware, CSAM or spam that is difficult to remove. Onion links already being the Russian roulette they are, the tendency is rather clear, nobody* really wants that.

qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
it's not the name servers' job to deal with any of that, especially on the clearnet
- Avamander 4y ago
  It's the host of those name servers' job, yes.
  - qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
    you're arguing that its yellow pages job to remove the entry for businesses that violate laws. not only is that not the case, that's profoundly absurd.
    - Avamander 4y ago
      It is! If a doctor listed on yellow pages is not really a doctor then they shouldn't be there to mislead people. This analogy extends wonderfully, really. If that fake doctor is also infecting people with illnesses or takes pictures secretly, then it's not only a legal mandate, it's also an ethical one.
      - qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
        and that's the authority you choose to report such a transgression to - not the police, not the oversight agencies, but the yellow pages? that's who you expect to investigate your report a make a judgement about its validity?
        Avamander 4y ago
        Reporting to the law enforcement and removing a "number" are not mutually exclusive. But law enforcement has got their hands full with the more illegal stuff already. So leaving the not too difficult to detect - simple spam, scam and malware to the registrars and hosts to deal with - is not ridiculous. I'm really sorry, but this infrastructure has functioned for more than two decades. It takes a massive amount of manhours daily to deal with abuse. How can you unironically defend and claim that a system that removes most punitive measures will be good or usable? Is it delusion or naivety?
        qweqwerwerwerwr 4y ago
        it is an observation. the two systems without punitive measures I have provided as an example in my original comment - crypto and tor - have been doing alright for more than a decade.
madacol 4y ago
You should decouple existing from experiencing it. Me too, like you, don't want to experience what I consider malware, spam, etc. The problem is that malware and spam have gray areas where some people are ok with it, but others don't. We should allow all of those existing, and instead limit what we experience by filtering/censoring In other words, instead of censoring globally, we should censor locally at a community level
- Avamander 4y ago
  In theory that's a reasonable approach, in reality we've tried that on the web with all the restrictions we have. Antiviruses, real-time spam blocklists, adblockers all perpetually try to catch and block malicious actors, so far they haven't succeeded. On the local level as well, registrars have to follow local laws. I don't think it would be any easier if you can't take any recourse besides blacklisting a pubkey there could be billion billions of. Even things that have no gray area would be nearly impossible to curtail in large volumes.
  - madacol 4y ago
    Most of those methods will still work under a decentralized DNS, because although it's decentralized at the global layer, there will still be centralized clusters What you won't be able to do is remove at the root, and instead you blacklist My claim is that under a decentralized DNS, "removing" or "blacklisting" have the same effect on what you consume because you are always in control. The BIG difference is that, under a decentralized DNS, no one controls anymore what OTHER people consume/trust. And I am strongly against of any group of people limiting how other groups communicate between themselves, even if these "other groups" are sharing child pornography. I'm open to some data about this, meanwhile I have a strong bias into thinking the cure is much worse than the disease