Upcoming proposal and discussion on content moderation

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. Itā€™s a much better system.

Thatā€™s exactly what people said about Bitcoin in 2012.

But you donā€™t make any discount on the fact that weā€™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 donā€™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 ā€œnot because itā€™s easy, but because itā€™s hardā€.

4 Likes

I am more leaning towards what @Ciaran proposing, the IC is an infrastructure like the web, it shouldnā€™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 thereā€™s no one point that can be attacked, just like the good old WEB.

5 Likes

Keep seeing the worst examples being brought up: ā€œMass shootings, slave markets, bla blaā€
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.

2 Likes

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, itā€™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?

2 Likes

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

What? Iā€™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 doesnā€™t in any way undermine the laws in any democracy.

Iā€™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 wonā€™t have to delegate authority to some entity to perform these tasks, and that this entity, which would unambigiously be a fiduciary, wonā€™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 KYCā€™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.

6 Likes

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, Iā€™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.

5 Likes

No if you read back the context was suggesting a better mechanism than IP.

If you donā€™t think an actively governed IC (by ICP holder financial interests) wouldnā€™t be a big tech monopoly then I donā€™t know what to say to you.

OK Iā€™m really done with this thread now. Good luck reinveting web 2.0.

1 Like

Suggesting is fine, but the rub is in who getā€™s to decide whatā€™s better.

1 Like

That would presume that the IC is a democracy. But it is missing most constituting principles of a proper democracy. In its current form, itā€™s a business oligarchy at best.

4 Likes

This 2017 Medium article by @dominicwilliams explains the thinking behind the NNS (then BNS).

Dominicā€™s thoughts on matter may have evolved (a little bit) since then, but it is still a good read!

Just shows how scared folks are of the IC, donā€™t think so? How long was Mario up? two weeks? Looks like we are getting more attention than most of us tend to realize.

While it is important to have this discussion, as some have pointed out, nuance is missing in many cases.
Imho things getting mixed up too much. IP protection should not be confused with censorship per se.

Censoring free speech has nothing to do with opposition to stealing someoneā€™s work. Iā€™m actually really happy this happend and the discussion that it caused. For me this project is not at a stage where it has the ability to be ā€˜unstoppableā€™ and will take a few years and a few thousand nodes more before it will reach the point where it would be really hard to shut anything down without the community (NNS/governance panel elected through people parties or whatever it might be) agreeing.

While passion seems to be strong and it is important to keep the ultimate goal in focus we should recognize the importance to grow to a much bigger and stronger beast before starting to battle the powers to be. For me the fact that a node operator getā€™s mail from Nintendo just shows how much the whole industry is watching us, and how many people have an interest in the IC not to succeed.

You donā€™t send infants into battle.

Sure I get the point of jurisdiction and all the different things that might be considered illegal in one place might be seen as perfectly fine in others, but looking at the reality right now there are nodes in the EU, US and Singapore, so while important to talk about the what if scenarios, we should keep reality in mind and start worrying about the CCP once there are a couple of hundred nodes in China that get threatened to be taken down for whatever reason. We are by far not there yet.

Since this is a developer forum I would have thought IP protection should be in everyoneā€™s best interest,
feel free to donate, but have the right to own your work (btw Iā€™m not a dev, but like to get paid for my work and expect to have my patented inventions protected)

just my 2 cents

5 Likes

image

3 Likes

Maybe the problem is that the IC at the moment makes it possible for Nintendo to pursue node operators. You seem to be confusing the ability of the IC to challenge an ownership paradigm it [supposedly] deems outdated and the resistence that the dying paradigm will put up, with the IC becoming the wild west. A-legality as it was used by @Ciaran is not about the law not caring about the IC/BTC (it clearly does care, a lot), itā€™s about the IC/BTC operating independently of it to the extent that it can precisely challenge obsolete paradigms. If you think the transition will be without friction I donā€™t know what to tell you.

4 Likes