Upcoming proposal and discussion on content moderation

Governance
182

We have collectively put in A LOT OF EXCELLENT IDEAS into this topic. My question is : WHERE IS DFINITY in this discussion? Are they going to be bystanders? Are they going to say “oh we wanted the community to have their say before we opined on this topic?”

It would be, imo, VERY USEFUL to have DFINITY as PART of this discussion RATHER than a spectator watching “a game”.

Currently , as the situation stands, from the initial post, the following conclusions are fairly obvious from the community, I think:

  1. Firstly this topic itself is extremely concerning to the community; because we thought that this was planned to be handled from a. Technical, b. Legal and c. Operational standpoint by DFINITY a long time ago. The various reasons why we think so are documented in multiple posts in this topic. That said, here are the additional points.

  2. OPERATIONAL: We have identified that IC should prepare the node providers for how to respond to “take-down” notices. The “take-down” in quotes because it takes many different things into consideration. Dan(@dostro ) is leading the charge here. Proposal for guidelines upon receipt of DMCA notices

  3. TECHNICAL: We have identified significant gaps in the current design of IC which leads to several weaknesses on our claims to “designed to be censorship resistant”. Jordan(@lastmjs ) is leading the charge here. Plausible deniability for node operators

  4. LEGAL: I believe that both operational and technical aspects will require significant help from legal side to make IC most censorship resistant. Further i believe, based on some of the posts here, that DFINITY would be able provide this help based on their prior work.

  5. The proposal of AUP IS ON HOLD as far as I can see because there is no broad consensus on how an AUP can be formulated or whether it should be formulated at all.

  6. Censorship cannot be just plonked on the community and say just vote on it; where the proposed abstains from even voting. There has to a commonly agreed-to vision (even if we are not there yet) and a roadmap to getting to the vision. Then, to satisfy the short-term needs, sure, we might need to take down a canister or two. BUT only in context of a larger picture (the vision) as we begin to make the platform stronger in face of opposition.

  7. This point is just a comment. Obviously this is extremely taxing for everyone who is passionately involved; both from a time as well as emotions.

I believe that IC represents the BEST opportunity to unshackle us from the tyranny of big-tech. However I also think that this topic is the existential threat to the vision of IC.

REST ASSURED: corporations and , through political donations (“free speech”), governments will FIGHT IC tooth and nail.

7 Likes