I like the wait-and-see approach,at this stage of the game
For this kind of Scihub, it will be up to the community to decide. If it brings a lot of benefit for many people, I believe most will vote ānoā to censorship, but it is still piracy. Better solution should be proposed.
ICP actually also open up new door for hosting new model for sci-hub. What if there is new sci-hub that researchers can publish their own work directly without middleman (aka publisher), and get reward/donation directly from the reader ? It is disruptive for editor/publishing industry, but this way still within the legal coridor.
3 Likes
Topical.
See the quoted thread. Is this what we want for The IC? How does the NNS decide what a legitimate DCMA request is vs one that is a merely a vehicle for oppression? Will there be a team of lawyers? Will they be able to deal with 10s, 100s or even 1000s of requests a day?
5 Likes
Good question, but unilaterally and upfront deciding that none of them are or ever will be is not a legitimate answer to that difficult question.
2 Likes
And having a governance mechanism that can decide which ones are and which ones arenāt isnāt compatible with being a Web 3.0 platform, the thing youāre supposed to have built.
So perhaps a rebrand? Uber for AWS?
Which stock exchange will ICP be listed on?
If it is the boundary nodes getting the notices, but are not really hosting the content but are just rerouting, (please correct me if I understand this wrong) maybe would have to get a court case going where liability is found not to be with the boundary node, since they have no power over what is getting routed over their server? Community fund comes to mind. Let them enter the rabbit hole, and make it difficult to spam the node operators with notices?
I get the point that this case could set a bad example, and spamming a node operator with letters could be a kind of attack vector to mess with the system.
1 Like
You keep claiming that you donāt say anything derogatory about the technology behind the IC. And youāre technically correct.
But if you want to be taken seriously rather than fought tooth and nail or more often just ignored, then comments like the two above and fringe positions like āthere will be plenty of child porn but on canisters that arenāt all that popularā are definitely not helping your argument.
I could get behind a couple of your arguments a few screens up (e.g. that any amount of moderation is moderation and that would make it hard to push back against questionable legal requests. But as someone whoās often sarcastic and passive aggressive online (Iām trying really hard to be on my best behavior here, as a DFINITY employee) I can tell you from experience that (i) sticking to the argument without blowing it out of proportion and (ii) trying your best to understand counter-arguments and address them will take you much farther.
7 Likes
If we could manage to take liability from the boundary nodes, would be a first step, then kick liability down the road, nodes canāt choose what subnet theyāre on (did I understand that correct?), and it could be argued they have no power over the content on any particular subnet. Iām just thinking loud here, about how to buy time for technical solutions to be available. I agree it should be extremely difficult to take anything down, a simple letter sounds way too easy.
1 Like
E.g. AFAICT you still havenāt addressed what are in my view not one but two elephants in the room:
-
Shuffling stuff around (e.g. allowing node operators to blacklist canisters) may help initially, but if because of this the IC becomes first and foremost a platform for content thatās illegal in most jurisdictions instead of first and foremost a decentralized platform for content and apps that are useful to the general public, then IMHO itās quite possible that it will be reduced by legal means to a handful of nodes in Bermuda and Salvador rather than what everyone here envisions it to be.
-
Having the NNS at all and allowing it to make changes to evolve the protocol (as opposed to e.g. ICP price and SDR exchange rate changes only) means that protocol changes can be made that would introduce moderation. So either the network is immutable (and I can honestly tell you that weāre not at a point where the implementation, and to some extent the protocol, can support thousands of subnets; and is lacking many, many features required to make it fully autonomous); or if itās mutable, then all this discussion of no moderation is purely philosophical. Again, IMHO.
4 Likes
The comments above are legitimate! This is the choice The IC faces! And yes itās sardonic but Iām replying to a guy that has repeatedly put words in my mouth and insinuated Iām some form of anarchist.
Your request is like asking me to be more nuanced about the existence of gravity in order to win people over and come to some compromise. There is no compromise! Gravity just exists. The same applies here. If you put in place power structures to govern a network you will not, under any cirumstance, be treated like a decentralised autonomous network. Youāll be treated like AWS, Goldman Sachs, Paypal, The NYSE, Facebook or whatever. This is a fact of life that shockingly seems completely lost on the team.
It is also a fact of life that yes there would be CP on a censorship resistant IC. Itās a fact of life itās all over the internet now! You seem to be aspiring to some utopia that does not and will never exist. Imagine we were having this conversation 30 years ago and I said āyes if we allow people use this encryption a tiny minority will use it to send CPā and you responded āif youāre trying to people over to mass encryption use with statements like that itās not going to work!!ā
My mind continues to be blown gentlemen. What do you think youāre working on here? What is The IC to you? How can it simulataneously be both a governed and Web 3.0 platform? Enlighten me.
2 Likes
No the real elephant in the room is The ICās identity. What is it?! How do people want it to work? Letās get that set out straight first and then we can talk about actually making it work. Because the path people choose has a huge bearing on the technical specs.
1 Like
Show me one jurisdiction (that has had to address this issue at all) that has decided to take the approach you are suggesting for the IC: āthere will always be CP on the internet, so why donāt we just leave this mildly popular CP site up?ā
Yes, you need to be more nuanced in your arguments if you want to be taken seriously by the majority of those you are trying to convince. Else you come across as one of the way too many fringe political groups that one could point to. Who are either laughed off or feared (and fought against) by the majority.
But itās ultimately your choice. As a software engineer the ātheory of gravityā Iām dealing with is (in my possibly limited view) the technical impossibility of what you are asking for. And if your arguments fail to convince me of the necessity of building a network without governance in the first place, Iād rather go tackle the other impossible problems Iām dealing with; than the ones youāre unwilling to address even obliquely.
1 Like
??? Every jurisdiction has embraced the internet, the tech that allowed everyone, including paedos communicate with each other much more easily. Every jurisdiction has embraced encryption. Most jurisdictions have now embraced Bitcoin and Ethereum despite them allowing permissionless payments for all sorts of things (such as CP) states donāt like.
These debates simply donāt happen in the Ethereum community. It was always understood unsavouries would use it. Itās also understood itās still, on the whole, overwhelmingly a force for good in the world. There is clearly an unwillingness to accept that bad things that will happen on The IC here, and a complete lack of understanding of the consequences of that unwillingness.
You can label me fringe all you want but I represent the viewpoint held by the 99% in the Web 3.0 community - a community Dfinity claims to be a part of.
Iām not unwilling to address those problems at all. I literally cannot address them as long as governance/moderation/censorhip of the ledger is a goal. If thatās the goal, my recommendations wonāt be for node shuffling, etc, that would be needless overhead, Iād recommend incorporating, hiring teams to deal with DCMA requests, registering ICP as a security and competing with AWS by the rules it must play by - because you will eventuallly be forced to - rather than competing with Ethereum by the rules it plays by.
5 Likes
So if you donāt become Ethereum you have to become AWS? Thatās very black/white imo.
Not very productive either
2 Likes
To prove my sarcastic credentials then: in this case youāve got nothing to worry about. Iām confident the 99% of you will be easily able to push through a motion proposal to turn off the NNS altogether, no technical solution needed.
(The 99% of the community should have at least a simple majority among the early supporters of DFINITY, who all provided their support via BTC or ETH donations. And they hold the majority of ICP. Looking forward to implementing the accepted proposal.)
2 Likes
Thereās little I can do about reality not being productive.
Well try harder. Seed round was only ~25% and I know from speaking with many of them most have found it extremely difficult to even access their ICP and are loathe to use the command line to try to follow other neurons. The Foundation holds all the cards and you know it.
1 Like
Reality is a big word.
Take it from someone that has spent a lot of time in Buddhist monasteries.
hint: your reality might differ from others
edit# sorry but couldnāt help it, reality is my trigger word
4 Likes
Nobody is asking you to do the impossible. Most of us are just interested in the future direction of the network. First it was about following the law and now its about it being an engineering challenge. Those are very different things.
1 Like