First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?
Either something is permissionless, or it isn’t.
The current rise of ubiquitous surveillance is already creating a censorship-resistant system. Whether it's open or not is a matter of policy, rather than technology.
> First we start with scammers and crooks, then fast forward a little, and suddenly now we are doing civil forfeitures?
That's a really good point: I would hope if there were more footage of civil forfeiture it would be harder to get away with it, eh? If everybody can see what everybody else-- including police and politicians --is up to then we can only get away with what everybody (or most everybody) accepts. I call it the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy".
FWIW, N. Korea is my go-to example for how NOT to organize a society. I have no idea what to do about them, and I'm grateful that it's not my problem.
If you have to rely on some policy - it’s not censorship free.
You propose we literally rely on a trusted third party to adjudicate things.
AKA a literal censor? To make things censor free?
Above we're talking about "censorship-resistant" and here you've "moved the goalposts" to "censorship free".
What's your goal in this conversation? Do you want to fight or think?