Re: [Tech] Crazy idea: How trust in darknets enables secure democratic censorship

Matthew Toseland wrote:

>>- Firstly, One of the first things that came to mind when you began this 
>>quest to determine "trust", was that it creates a very real chance of 
>>"groupthink" within freenet. Why? Because, while it is difficult to 
>>quantify when the method to *determine* this trust is still largely 
>>unknown, the reality is, there will likely be some "like-mindedness" in 
>>those who *are* determined as "trustworthy" - this is further underlined by 
>>numerous comments that the non-dark-freenet would still be there for the 
>>"masses" - the implication is they won't be trusted and likely will have no 
>>means to be.
> 
> Okay, and this is a bad thing because...? Communities usually have some
> level of shared values (and there will not just be one darknet although
> there is likely to be one large one and some smaller ones).

Yes, but this community is a global one, and any belief that there is a 
"consensus" of morality in the global community is shortsighted and doomed 
to failure, *especially* because these communities overlap for other 
reasons, and as such, are likely to have overlapping trust relationships as 
well.

> No, not the founders, the community as a whole. Only a few hops from me
> are people I vehemently disagree with on most issues.

Yes, but your assumption suggests that the *majority* of Freenetters are 
good, like-minded individuals. The recent "Brazillian invasion" stories 
about Orkut are proof positive IMHO that a "darknet" (in the sense that it's 
invitation-only) can and has been overtaken by parties who do not share the 
viewpoints of the creators. Have you considered the possibility that, 
through co-ordinated effort, freenet gets inundated with people that 
*support* the very kinds of things you want to censor?

> I can't honestly see why any sane informed human being who isn't a
> scientologist wouldn't support the dissemination of the OT documents.

You can't perhaps, but that doesn't mean that your viewpoints are a global 
majority, either.

Let me give you another example - what if the government of a large western 
state became corrupt, and the "liberal" folk wanted to blow the whistle, but 
the majority supporters of said government wanted to keep it covered up? 
Would it not be trivially easy to do so if said majority was *also* a 
majority in freenet?

In fact, would that not apply in the general sense? That the majority views 
would trump minority views anywhere on freenet, regardless of whether the 
viewpoint was the "correct" one?

It would appear to me that voting can *only* work if you believe, without 
exception, that the majority population is right 100% of the time. All you 
have to do is look back to Germany during the WW to see that the majority of 
a population *can* be convinced that morally reprehensible items are in fact 
not so.

> Sounds a fairly elitist argument. But lets say you're right. Why would
> people who would vote for political speech they disagree with to be
> censored even join the network?

Because you're discounting people who may want to join the network for the 
*express purpose* of censoring it.

--Ken.
_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe