4 ms·

Best bet is to build the network to be resistant to government, police, and (underlying layers 2/3) network censorship. You work to make protocols which make i

Best bet is to build the network to be resistant to government, police, and (underlying layers 2/3) network censorship. You work to make protocols which make individuals and small groups as equally powerful as large groups when it comes to meeting physical/biological survival needs. You promote personal sovereignty even if it means some random nut can kill a bunch of randos as a negative six-sigma result. Instead of building systems which try to subsume individual mental sovereignty into the group mind (all is one, all is god), promote technologies which enable minds to grow in capabilities and independence (you too can grow into a god). Governments are examples of the former. It is better the government or any other powerful group not be able to handcuff the guy you don't like today, lest they come to handcuff you tomorrow. Everyday you give up your sovereignty like a currency for some form of benefit (try manufacturing methamphetamine while skipping property taxes, you are not sovereign): always evaluate if you are still getting a good deal, and build technologies which make it harder (NOT EASIER) to both give up or take away that sovereignty. This is almost a religious thing. (Caveat: I am big-A Atheist.)

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Such networks already exist. There's a reason most people won't use them: moderation. Most people don't want to spend their time on 4chan. If you want interesting content, then you want users, which means you want moderation. The problem with moderation is that it's a hierarchy. That's exactly what a decentralized network exists to avoid. We need a decentralization-compatible moderation alternative. I think reframing top-down moderation as bottom-up curation could work.
- rustcleaner 3y ago
  Freenet's FMS+WoT seemed like a good moderation solution: subscribe to your moderator of choice. 4chan's problem isn't a lack of reputation system to game, its problem is a number of state actors and ideological groups pouring resources into bot campaigns meant to derail discussion and demoralize users. Psywar is afoot!

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Such networks already exist. There's a reason most people won't use them: moderation. Most people don't want to spend their time on 4chan. If you want interesting content, then you want users, which means you want moderation. The problem with moderation is that it's a hierarchy. That's exactly what a decentralized network exists to avoid. We need a decentralization-compatible moderation alternative. I think reframing top-down moderation as bottom-up curation could work.

rustcleaner 3y ago
Freenet's FMS+WoT seemed like a good moderation solution: subscribe to your moderator of choice. 4chan's problem isn't a lack of reputation system to game, its problem is a number of state actors and ideological groups pouring resources into bot campaigns meant to derail discussion and demoralize users. Psywar is afoot!