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

Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Which is *definitionally* bad. Even though the lack of censorship means
> the people who would most benefit from Freenet can't use it, only the
> people who don't care (because they're entirely amoral), or think the
> benefit outweighs the cost (because they're hardline libertarians like
> us).

You keep saying that, I just don't see it as true.

If someone wants to use freenet to distribute "morally" sound but "legally" 
unsound information, and needs it out there badly enough (think freedom 
fighter, etc), they *will* use freenet, regardless of the moral quality of 
the other content on the medium. To them, I believe it's likely that they'll 
care more about the anonymity and reliability of the network, rather than 
what else is in transit.

Ys, even *if* that means running a node that may otherwise carry 
objectionable content (because, as you've pointed out, it'll likely not only 
be illegal for them to run the node, but illegal for them to dissimate their 
information. In that situation, are they *really* going to be worried about 
CP charges?)

--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