I think the main difference here is that the IC isn’t merely a protocol. Once you get into hosting content things drastically change. The link of Vitaliks take on this is actually exactly what folks are discussing (e.g. peoples parties). There is no easy solution for this and while your principal ideas might be good the question remains: How to deal with a situation like this if not through the NNS? Just let the node operator handle it? What’s your practical approach? Theories are all good but right now it’s all about pragmatism imo. Should boundary nodes be left out in the rain with this?
Btw thanks for your input and don’t take it personal I’m always happy to discuss and always eager to learn and try to see different perspectives. And just to let you know, my technical knowledge is mediocre at best but not so much my knowledge of politics/philosophy/psychology and therefore different forms of governance. It is actually the possibilities I see in this respect that has drawn me to the IC. Right now it’s a purely capitalistic system and doesn’t have much to do with democracy at all. Still personally I think we are on the right track but still have a long and bumpy road ahead. I find people expect way too much, while being inpatient.
Yes but the point is nobody holds TBL responsible for inventing someone that allows people to permissionlessly send CP. Nobody holds writers of encryption algos responsible for people being able to be hide what they’re sending (further increasing people’s ability to permissionlessly send CP). I want to get to a point where nobody holds people responsible for building or participating in a protocol that enables people to permissionlessly store CP.
It goes back to the trade off I spoke of in my first post. Technologies like HTTP, encryption and The IC cannot exist to help everyone as much as they do if bad people don’t also benefit from them. If we put a backdoor in encryption to try find people sending CP, we ruin that particular technology for everyone. I’m trying to get the point across - with some difficulty! - that the same principle applies here with governance and The IC. You won’t be able to have truly open internet and financial services if you have active ledger governance. Of that I am convinced.
Per subnet moderation is just kicking the problem I’m talking about to the subnets. They’ll be deemed MSBs and publishers and god knows what else depending on what activity they host. It’s not sustainable either. We need technical solutions that absolve node holders of liability much like miners and stakers in other networks are absolved of being MSBs.
Radical and maximalist demands are cheap, as long as you can ignore reality. I would be interested in hearing an actual practical suggestion for solving the very real dilemma we (more specifically, node providers) face. You have evaded any answer to that so far, or decried it as strawman.
The challenge presented to the community by @alexa.smith is not an opportunity to sling opinions, but to propose solutions.
TBH, I am surprised that those advocating minimal interference are not referencing the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s excellent work, specifically their work around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic Frontier Foundation Speaking of whom, I don’t believe the EFF ever suggested people’s copyrighted material should be a secondary concern to hardware hosts’ Rights.
@alexa.smith I’d like to suggest this issue is not a new one and there are plenty of people and organisations with a wealth of experience who can help.Can we get some input from Amnesty International, the EFF, WikiLeaks, etc?
I agree. But the courts of any jurisdiction are going to want to impose the justified claims of their plaintiffs, and those plaintiffs will include governments, and we still have to live in a jurisdiction with the potential for extradition. Ultimately we are subject to whichever power bloc controls our physical location. Agreeing that a legal request from a court will return information that satisfies that court is a pre-requisite for a business operating in their territory. Look at RIM/Blackberry for an example of a company that was identified and then (effectively) destroyed because it was too good at user security.
Tor Exit Node operators have faced legal repercussions even though they have no ability to control traffic. Just because you remove the ability to delete canisters doesn’t mean the legal system throws up its hands in defeat. If you’re all about freedom then why are you against node operators having the freedom to choose legally compliant subnets?
What are my radical and maximalist demands exactly? To me expecting to administer an internet platform through coin voting yet avoid regulatory oversight when it aims to secure billions in value and a lot of other important information is radical to the point of being insane.
There have been numerous solutions put forward (eg node shuffling, secure enclaves, onion routing). @free has acknowledged them and intonated that they’re in the roadmap. They’re obviously long term.
I’m assuming short term it’s hoped governance can fill the gap. As I said above, I’m not here to demand immediate technical fixes, I’m here to point out that what is obvioue to me: Governance of the ledger is completely unsustainable if it is to remain open. I’m shocked that this seems like news to people. I’m shocked the protocol was launched with the explicit aim of being open and censorship resistant yet structured as to leave node operators on the hilt for anything that’s hosted on the network.
I keep getting thrown off by your use of “consensus mechanism” so can you clear that up for me?
Its my understanding that the actual consensus that takes place with ledger transactions is separate from the NNS governance process. I understand the existence of this specific type of proposal (remove canister) is being questioned. But the distributed notary process between nodes on a subnet is not your issue right?
I think that’s a discussion that should be done under the trees we should have planted a decade ago, but Genesis has already happened. I can think of how the challenges of Governance vs censorship resistance can be (or is being) met in favor of resistance, but it’s the kind of solution that I would not discuss on an open forum. I would rather be pleasantly surprised at some future point and in the meantime remain in blissful ignorance.
Yes the consensus mechanism is the autonomous part. It’s what should allow open internet services. If it keeps getting overridden by a bureacracy implementing nation state rules, states will quickly realise that the consensus mechanism actually doesn’t provide any security at all and therefore they will be forced to regulate the administrators. At that point you’ve just reverted to the current system. This doesn’t happen on Ethereum because the consensus mechanism is king. It never gets overridden.
But as others pointed out above, expecting that the judiciary system is just going to throw up their arms and give up simply because it is somewhat difficult to point to the exact machine providing a piece of content is naive in the extreme.
And if you are concerned that governments (or big money, or whatever) may take over the NNS and impose their will on what gets censored and what doesn’t; and think that limiting the NNS to protocol specific changes is the solution; then that’s also naive: adding back a “remove canister” proposal to the NNS is also merely a protocol change. So if “the bad guys” get control of the NNS all bets are off regardless.
I believe the point is that NNS proposals can be used to make changes to canister states, changes that were not encoded in the canister. I.e. “code is law” turns into “code is law except if the NNS says otherwise”.
What do you propose we do with the existing node providers whom invested $$ into hardware and face real legal risk today? We just abandon them for idealism? Who is going to invest in running nodes in your anarchic vision for the network?
But that’s how it has been since genesis right? Removing the ability to “remove canister” isn’t going to change the way governance works. If that’s the problem then wouldn’t we need to remove or completely overhaul the NNS?
Edit: Just read your previous reply to Ciaran; i think that was the point you made. Thanks.