Re: Re: [Tech] flaming ;-)

We can easily allow blocking of CHK keys on a per node basis. Yes, it 
will be ineffective and distributing blacklists won't do too much good 
as it is easy to alter a file by a few bits. But that is sort of the 
point: We want people to not feel they are supporting material they 
don't approve of. However we don't want to allow the network to reveal 
anyone's identity. The issue we are addressing here is public 
perception. It is much less offensive to know that theoretical somewhere 
there is material you disapprove of and you can only take limited steps 
to stop it, than it is if the software constantly picks the most 
offensive content possible and puts it in  your browser window and says 
"Does this disturb you?".

Matthew Toseland wrote:

>Well, the point is: The alternative is that the only people who will
>ever use freenet are:
>a) Seriously dedicated libertarians like us, who consider the kiddy porn
>to be a price worth paying, and
>b) Psychos who don't care.
>
>For it to be really useful it needs to be usable by for example
>oppressed religious minorities in totalitarian states. And it needs to
>be usable by (relatively) "normal" people too. Such a voting system
>would allow a much larger range of people to benefit from Freenet.
>
>On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:01:31PM +0200, Newsbyte wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't think this is the way to go or ponder about, even apart from the
>>extra technical/software coding to come up with such a system, while we
>>should be concentrating on other things. Freenet is about being anonymous
>>and uncensorable (as much as possible), the moment you deviate from that,
>>then what was the point?
>>
>>Yes, sure, you explain some sort of  democratic self-censoring...but that IS
>>still censorship. Democracy is no good if it's two wolves and one sheep
>>deciding what to have for dinner.  If one wants to limit the 'wrong' things
>>on the network by any means, then I prefer the way I2P does it; at least
>>there it's the one that publishes that takes the risk, but it doesn't
>>involve the opinion of others to determine what someone could see.
>>    
>>
>
>I2P does not deal with the problem.
>  
>
>>If enough people (like in europe) find something 'objectionable' (like
>>hate-speech), then, just because it is widely or at least generally seen as
>>being 'wrong', it will become impractical to use the network for it. So,
>>basically, while it may have little effect on topics most  people generally
>>do not object much to  (such as d/l copyrighted mp3s), it will censor topics
>>if they are more widely unpopular.
>>    
>>
>
>Such as child porn, yes. I would hope that most parts of the network are
>sufficiently liberal as to not block hate speech. But even if they do on
>some networks, is that bad? They certainly won't block the diebold
>files, or the Operating Thetan documents.
>
>  
>
>>I really think this is the wrong way to
>>go, because in that case, whatever is considered 'wrong' by a large mass of
>>people in a certain age or timeperiod, would be open to censorship (or
>>anonymity-deprivation). And I don't think that is (or at least was) the goal
>>of Freenet.
>>    
>>
>
>No, it's not the overt goal of Freenet. It's something else that
>achieves the same ultimate goal - making it difficult for the powerful
>to impose their views on what we should and should not be able to talk
>about.
>  
>
>>If any 'censorship' should be done, it should be done by the individual
>>whome objects to it, for HIM/HERSELF. As a libertarian, I can support
>>someone deciding 'these kinds of files I don't want on my node' (even though
>>I doubt that's technically possible, in the given system), far more then I
>>can accept that other persons create a form of censorship, however popular
>>the drive for censorship may be for a given topic.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't see how that would be practical.
>  
>
>>Furthermore, I doubt that the system will become more simple (certainly in
>>respect to anonymity and non-censorship) if you allow *some* form of
>>censorship, while you try to avoid censorship of (potentially) everything.
>>
>>Also, I think it may weaken your legal defence, if someone (including the
>>RIAA) can point out that one received some notice of objectionable material,
>>but you didn't vote to try to censor (or try to focus on the node that send
>>it). Yes, nodes in the darknet are between trusted friends, and maybe the
>>above won't happen much, but still. (and besides, what with the no,-dark
>>network?).
>>    
>>
>
>That is exactly the same situation as without it. Without it they will
>say you support the distribution of illegal content by inaction and by
>running a node. With it they will say exactly the same thing. It makes
>zero difference; it is likely that the node is illegal in any case. This
>is precisely why we can do this.
>  
>
>>All by all, as a matter of principle, I don't think that it's the job of
>>anyone, not even by majority vote, to censor on what is deemed acceptable
>>and not. If you want to have a way of self-censorship, devise a system
>>whereby people can decide what stays on *their* node or not, WITHOUT giving
>>the possiblity to decide what stays on someone elses' node (or to make them
>>lose their anonymity).
>>    
>>
>
>That would be entirely meaningless. If you don't take some sanctions
>against the poster there is no deterrent and you'll be perpetually
>wading through a see of filth just to block the latest release.
>Meaningful action has to be taken at a semi-collective level (note that
>we are not talking about global voting here), and if you just block a
>few files, then the network will simply route around you with per node
>failure tables. "I don't want my node storing this" is no different to
>"I don't want my node assisting in the retrieval of this", so I2P's
>approach does not help either.
>
_______________________________________________
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