Are the points in these two tweets consistent or inconsistent??
I take “data ownership” to mean that only the owner is in control of their data or app, and no one else (DAO or Dfinity) can use it or delete it.
If Dominic’s post takes away from data ownership, as some have said, what better options are there to deter bad actors while preserving data ownership? Or is it just not possible to do both?
Here’s one way to think about this… How would you win over someone like Erdal (refer to the tweet above). He’s expecting full ownership of his data. So how would ICP be better for him in terms of data ownership over the web 2 platforms?
I’m thinking eventhough Dfinity can delete your app, but at least they won’t do all of the other things that tend to happen when you don’t own your data. For instance, our data won’t get sold to third parties.
We can also say that ICP has the most censorship free platform that’s allowable under the law. Web 2 platforms are not open to that degree since they will take down apps that they disagree with (even if app doesn’t violate laws).
(post deleted by author)
“Caffeine will also delete the self-writing platform accounts of bad actors it detects.” what? What defines a bad actor? Are these defined by the Caffeine engine, or some DFINITY/ICP based definition? What if SBF turned around, got clean and made an internet utopia? Would it block him on reputation?
Sure, but also the code it generates can also be copied and hosted using other platforms.
Web3 means sovereign apps, a point that DFINITY pushes regularly. I know ICP has built in controls, but if the OS can just decide you’re bad and delete you, we’ve gone nowhere in terms of the tech and the whole reason for blockchain. (Centralized platforms distribute data centers.)
yes I was not expecting this, this is not decentrized at all, what will you get banded for? Instagram shadow banns even making knive companies. Thats why people were hoping for a unbannable place to have freedom. If its on chain you should not be able to remove it.
One person on X brought up letting that matter be handled by the DAO. That would decentralize the decision making. That might be better, but then can anyone just offer your app up for a vote to be deleted for ANY reason? And then that get passed by a thin margin? While decentralized, but still can get abused without standards being in place.
Personally, I think the only reason to ban or delete an app is if it violates the law, like if an app involves abuse of children.
yes, I hope they dont do woke things like banning legal content that they does not align with with their views. For example knifemakers and gun manufactures that legally use caffeine and icp to do business. There is a big market for this because they are being banned from every mainstream social media.
No one cares about that, that’s just a personal preference.
Agree, caffeine needs to be decentralized at NNS level. Otherwise this product lacks what web2 users are starting to ask what they need
What really matters is having control over your app, your code. That’s the value nothing else, no narratives, tangible difference between web2 ai tools and caffiene.
If Dfinity censor accounts this is just another web2 tool