Upcoming proposal and discussion on content moderation

You don’t view this as low-stakes “practice” for when the real game is afoot?

And the real game can get very very very nefarious, very quickly.

1 Like

If enough people don’t think Nintendo has a fair claim, then it shouldn’t be removed IMO. If not, where does it stop?

Too many opinions to make a AUP where one size would fit all. Each issue has to be a NNS vote to remove the canister in question. I think perhaps maybe we could agree on some strict AUP such as no child pornography that wouldn’t require a vote, but anything relating to free speech or DMCA is kind of up in the air. Speaking from experience, I’ve been targetted unfairly with DMCA by a competitor and luckily the DMCA process let me rebuttal and they didn’t want to pay legal fees to take it further.

In these scenarios, I agree with lastmjs that we need to protect the node providers. DFINITY must use its available resources to hire attorneys to come up with plausible deniability or whatever it takes to not hold the node providers liable when the NNS agrees to disobey country X’s laws. I am not against exposing some amount of risk to node providers if they are located in susceptible jurisdictions (risk vs reward).

I also wouldn’t be against node providers rejecting a canister but only if another provider has agreed pick it up. I don’t think we should punish these node providers but instead reward the ones who can take on legally complicated content.


I think the best that could happen is if something like this occurs again, the canister can be suspended until the owner ID’s themselves, turn it back on and we throw them to the wolves and let them deal with it. nimby :slight_smile:

these things really shouldn’t be our problem, there’s like 190+ countries with all sorts of different rules. if some content on some node violates some regulation or law frankly I didn’t sign up to be part of some political movement here around freedom of whatever.


however let’s take another example from history. As some may know IBM was involved in the census machine market for a very long time. IBM’s IP and machines and associated population data contained on punch cards had been used by the Nazis to hunt down and kill millions of Europe’s Jews, along with enabling the Nazi war machine in industries in general.

In the future what if someone were to start using canisters like the Nazi’s used IBM’s machines?

Perhaps Super Mario is a silly child’s game but we all know machines can be used for far worse.

It was a piece of luck that the first case involving taking down a canister was so easily resolved. It exposed gaps in Dfinity’s prep, divisions within the community, and the need to address both before a more serious threat comes along.
My big takeaway from this discussion is that no real progress towards censorship resistance can happen while we know what information each node holds. As long as node providers and the data centres that host them are exposed, few will risk hosting nodes in places where censorship is stringent, with contraventions of regulations leading to imprisonment. I am thinking of places like South Asia, China, Russia, West Asia, most of Africa outside South Africa, and so on. To lose these will, in turn, undermine the hierarchy of node, data centre, geography and jurisdiction that is at the heart of Dfinity’s vision of censorship resistance.


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.


Hell a corporation qualifies as community ownership. These things exist everywhere (eg AWS) now so I don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t need The IC for community ownership.

Do you really see no difference? How much influence — do you think — did APPL share holders have on Apple’s decision to remove Navalny’s App from the Russian app store?

The point you and seemingly almost everyone sees to miss is if the NNS starts “picking battles” it’ll be seen as a powerful entity making governance decisions outside of democratic control, thus undermining state authority. It will be brought to heal.

If the NNS stays out of the moderation game, states will only go after individual users using other tools such as blockchain analysis like they do with other blockchains and decentralised systems such as TOR.

Remember Silk Road? Did the government try to ban Bitcoin or TOR? No they did not. They went after Ross Ulbricht and used various investigatory tools available to them above the protocol level. They did this because they saw the protocols as autonomous. If the IC is actively governed like Facebook is, they’ll go after it as opposed to individual users.

Learn from history people!


Not a lot but if the NNS goes down a moderation road, the sheer volume of cases it would have to handle will require delegation to management and ICP holders will then be little different to Apple shareholders.

It absolutely is. The intellectual property becomes a public rather than private good but its creator is still rewarded. It’s a much better system.

That’s exactly what people said about Bitcoin in 2012.

But you don’t make any discount on the fact that we’re just in the beginning and the current governance system is in its infancy. We have so many tools at our disposal like the built-in value exchange infrastructure (ICP, cycles) to create economic incentives for IC users and in combination with smart contracts to automate and auto-regulate a whole lot of processes (e.g. at least to prevent trivial IP infringements). I don’t think that questioning the entire idea of DAOs at the first obstacle is productive. I would hope, that the early adopters of IC would embrace this challenge “not because it’s easy, but because it’s hard”.


I am more leaning towards what @Ciaran proposing, the IC is an infrastructure like the web, it shouldn’t interfere with the politics and what is being hosted on, if an entity has an issue with what is hosted on a canister they can go after the individual to take it down.
We should instead think about how to protect the node providers and how to more decentralize the network so that there’s no one point that can be attacked, just like the good old WEB.


Keep seeing the worst examples being brought up: “Mass shootings, slave markets, bla bla”
All those things are already enabled by the internet ffs. At some point a blockchain with equal capabilities to the IC will be spun up, and your votes wont be able to do shit about it. Lets not pretend we exist in a vacuum. Ethereum is far more dangerous with DeFi today and I can put super mario on filecoin easily.


Perhaps, but in a democratic society, that is not for you to decide, but for elected lawmakers. Once somebody considers themselves above the law and above democratic decision making, it’s just totalitarian hubris.

Not all societies are sufficiently democratic, I get it. In fact, few are. But mine fortunately is. How do we resolve this tension without giving democracy, rule of law, and all the people it represents a kick in the face?


Well we just democratically decided not to shut the canister down FYI.

What? I’m saying that a new game creator would choose to be rewarded by quadratic funding rather than via IP rights. That is a contractual choice and doesn’t in any way undermine the laws in any democracy.

I’m going to take leave of this thread now but safe to say my mind is blown re the lack of understanding of why decentralised protocols succeed and I have little hope for the success of this project if it pursues a policy of active governance of the ledger (as opposed to just the protocol rules).

If people want to live in some fantasy land where they are seen to use governance to remove copyright infringements, hate speech, child porn, etc, yet simultaneously believe The IC won’t have to delegate authority to some entity to perform these tasks, and that this entity, which would unambigiously be a fiduciary, won’t have to register as a money transmitter or brokerage in every jurisdiction on the planet, then so be it.

The reality is that will happen. The IC will be centrally administered. Every account on the IC will be KYC’d. ICP will be deemed a security in common law jurisdictions (because it blatantly would be). Governments will routinely interact with this entity to pursue public policy goals.

Perhaps at that point the penny will drop that absolutely nothing new has been created here.


The context was that you suggested that the IC should ignore IP legislation, which was created by democratic processes. The game creator might not prefer what you prefer and rather continue to operate in this framework of IP laws.

(For the record, I’m not even a big fan of current IP laws, but I respect the process that created them.)

1 Like

For some here, the point of the IC is to liberate us from the stranglehold and caprice of big tech monopolies, not to circumvent laws in functioning societies.