3 ms·
Yes. Most reasonable people don’t want anyone sharing CSAM, for example.
by the_gastropod 3y ago
Yes. Most reasonable people don’t want anyone sharing CSAM, for example.
- skinkestek 3y agoAgree that there are things we don't want to exist, but by your logic internet should have been forbidden a long time ago. This can be said for so many situations: Most people does not want cars to crash into Christmas fairs either. But the solution is not to ban cars. Most people does not want kids to be bullied at school. But the solution is not to ban schools. Etc. You can say we have laws about cars. Yes, but those laws aren't enforced by Ford or Volkswagen. Edit: or by Shell or Exxon for that matter. There will be laws about content on internet even if Google can't willy nilly remove the channel of Warthog Defense because it hurt some russians feelings.
- the_gastropod 3y ago> Most people does not want cars to crash into Christmas fairs either. But the solution is not to ban cars. Mist people does not want kids to be bullied at school. But the solution is not to ban schools. Right! And the solution also isn’t “fuck it. Too complicated to do perfectly. No discipline in schools / no traffic laws”.
- skinkestek 3y agoNo, but the solution is hopefully much closer to traditional western style punishment of switchboard operators who listen in or interfere and far far away from Stasi style mandatory snitching?
- segfaltnh 3y agoExactly right. I don't understand why people miss this detail. Maybe Google does have too much power over how content is served, but this isn't a fix, at all.
- rglullis 3y agoDecentralization does not mean anarchy. The discipline and the laws come from the bottom up. Also, they are usually better than the ones imposed by a central planner because they can be developed faster and within the context of the social norms and culture of the people who are subject to it.
- the_gastropod 3y agoDecentralization doesn't mean much of anything on its own. There are "decentralized" setups that do moderation fairly well (e.g., Mastodon or most oldschool web forums, where there's ultimately someone accountable). This (Nostr), specifically [1], makes fun of such setups. To moderate any system, there must be affordances for moderation and someone(s) accountable to the users of the system. As far as I can tell, like most blockchain projects, the Nostr project has effectively stripped (nearly) all affordances for doing moderation. Given that the Nostr audience seems to overlap considerably with crypto enthusiasts, I think their stance is basically the same: no moderation, no "censorship", etc. Given that there's literally child porn stored on the Bitcoin blockchain right now, I don't think your argument holds that "decentralization" can just Jeff Goldblum it and "find a way" without explicit affordances / accountability. [1] https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon https://nostr.com/comparisons/mastodon
- rglullis 3y agoNostr makes fun of the idea that you can have centralized moderation and moves it explicitly to the relays. It is up to the relay owner to determine what is allowed or not.
- the_gastropod 3y agoWhich practically means unanimous agreement is needed among all relays in order to moderate anything. I also don't see what incentive / accountability relays face to remove content. So... I don't see that strategy being particularly effective. But hey! If more than a couple dozen people wind up actually using the thing, guess we'll find out!
- f1refly 3y agoGood thing we tend to put people who share CSAM in jail, preventing them from doing so in the future, solving this problem for the rest of us.