Parler on the IC?


  1. Animal Crossing is a better tool for dissidents than Freenet.
    => If you want people to be able to use your application without adverse inferences being drawn it is better if the marketing is non controversial and main use case safe friendly and innocuous.
  2. Pablo Escobar might had continued his drug business without any problems if he hadn’t got into politics.
    => Don’t paint a target on your back by doing politics.
  3. Telegram private groups are better tool for free speech than Parler.
    => Private groups are less of a target than public ones
  4. Kim Dotcom is facing extradition and prison time, Steve Chen (Youtube founder) is rich and free. Both violated copyright on a massive scale
    => Don’t taunt law enforcement, instead you should have a process for moderating, identifying illegal content and dealing with requests.
  5. Banks launder much more money than bitcoin but there is less moral panic.
    => Be useful
  6. Regulators who want backdoor decryption are more focused on consumer services than enterprise ones.
    => Have a ‘legitimate’ economic excuse for privacy and censorship resistance.
  7. Nobody so far has come after Bitcoin or Ethereum to make them seize or freeze funds.
    => Credibly lacking an ability does provide a shield against coercion.
  8. Wackamole is difficult.
    => While the NNS can likely take down known illegal and grossly immoral canisters it cannot speedily understand and detect what it is an unknown canister is doing.
  9. Binance and Sci-Hub have survived by jurisdiction hopping
    => Subnets can be created which avoid hostile jurisdictions.
  10. Cultural offence is contextual. People live in jurisdictions.
    => User level moderation rules > universal rules

@pie-silo Neurons are not freely tradable. There is no way to change the beneficiary of a neuron after the neuron has been created. Neurons will exist at genesis, but their functionality is restricted until the beneficiary has passed KYC/AML via Acuant. More details will become available soon.


This seems like a sure fire way to stifle legal but controversial or unpopular speech/platforms/apps as voting entities could fear retribution if they tie their irl identity to a Neuron as part of the governance process.
Doesn’t such a strict requirement severely undermine the liquid democracy and censorship resistant guarantees that the IC offers?
I thought economic incentives were the only thing that could compel neuron operators to vote a certain way but this introduces a lot of variables and could effectively bind neurons to the local laws of the jurisdiction the owner resides in.
What happens if a government entity subpoenas Acuant to get access to PII pertaining to a neuron(which has maybe an outsized influence because operated by established vocal and respected community member and is therefore followed by a lot of other neurons) because of the way it voted on a certain proposal that they take a dim view of?
I expect Neuron voting history will be public and so neurons are effectively pseudonymous but crucially NOT anonymous right?

A Parler copycat would never be done by DFINITY itself for obvious PR reasons.

What would be interesting, and that I hope happens is if the community builds one as a sort of stress test for the NNS.

It’s similar to the idea being used now by making racist/controversial coins on BSC just to prove upon its removal that their blockchain is centralized and censorable.


Interesting discussion.

Personally, I see IC as potentially providing the tools to enable developers to provide users
with content (in the Parler example) that meets the users needs
and expectations.

For example, I would like to read spam free content with reasoned arguments based on
traceable factual information, posted by people with informed
opinions – unless it comes from my nephew, in case I’d
like to see it all!

So it sounds like voting neurons will be subject to the jurisdictions they reside, and thus may be held liable for content on the overall network - however, making the case for that liability and enforcing censorship might be an arduous process (so - censorship resistance). However, voters will probably want to avoid the most glaring content so as not to push it. I’m wondering where we expect that will fall on this “scale”…

  1. free speech, including controversial opinions, without inciting hate crime/action/violence.
  2. non-commercial copyrighted content subject to legal Free Use parody/remix interpretation (Mickey Mouse fan art)
  • <<< Facebook/Youtube are barely here
  1. otherwise above-board utilities designed for easy obscuring and re-publishing of censored content (e.g. Pirate-Bay-style automated re-hosting tumblers)
  2. pornography, with consent of content creators
  3. sites assisting user-data-supplied links to direct copyright violations (links to off-chain pirated movies)
  4. free speech inciting violence or organized illegal action (but with pro-democratic content, e.g. Hong Kong rioting)
  • <<< Reddit’s about here
  1. free speech inciting violence but debatably anti-democratic, or otherwise unpopular (Parler…)
  2. sites actively maintaining/hosting services which hold copyright violation links directly in code/community rules
  • <<< Most private comms Discord etc about here
  1. direct hosting copyrighted content (pirated movies, books, images), non commercial
  2. same but pornographic content, without consent of content creators
  • <<< Pirate Bay Torrents are about here
  1. sales and profiting off copyrighted content (resale of pirated content, remixes, integrated use. e.g. sale of game with copyrighted music)
  2. same but profiting off pornographic content, without consent of content creators
  • <<< More obscure private Discords and most public Tor stuff around here
  1. IP violation on a wide scale - structure (e.g. direct working integrated copy of entire look and feel of all major centralized internet sites… Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Google etc)
  2. IP violation on a wide scale - data (e.g. use of data mined from said sites to fill out backwards-compatibility and easily transition network effects, perhaps hidden until permission is provided from users to port over)
  • <<< *** Somewhat-missing link, expected to be filled by some end-to-end encrypted crypto network soon enough. China-web is mostly here in regards to IP violation though.
  1. shared private user data whose unauthorized distribution is illegal or could be used for violence (medical data, personal addresses, schedules, etc)
  2. child pornography, or other such highly-illegal digital content
  3. illegal criminal action (e.g. drug sales)
  • <<< Routine Dark Web / 4chan stuff
  1. illegal violent criminal action (e.g. hitmen)
  2. illegal violent sexual criminal action (e.g. trafficking rings)
  • <<< Specialty Dark Web

Probably missing some other useful distinctions in there, and the ordering could probably be switched around depending on perspectives.

I’m interested regardless of where Dfinity winds up on that scale, but I’m most interested in knowing whether we expect the network - or some designated more hands-off segment of it - might get away with fulfilling the crypto prophecy and just cloning most of the existing web’s centralized services with backwards compatibility. Obviously those services will get one-off (legally) cloned anyways on Dfinity, but it’s forseeable that a good crypto service will be able to just blatantly do it too. If enough Dfinity voting nodes are in China or other countries that care little about IP, that’s maybe even in the cards. (Though China would specifically become a problem for some earlier levels on that list e.g. free speech inciting protests)

Any thoughts/predictions/corrections?

(Posted this in a new topic here as well: Censorship and IP Liability Expectations in case it’s better split off)

1 Like