it's really not. not I or anyone I know wants a web filled with malware, CSAM or spam that is difficult to remove. Onion links already being the Russian roulette they are, the tendency is rather clear, nobody* really wants that.
The problem is that malware and spam have gray areas where some people are ok with it, but others don't.
We should allow all of those existing, and instead limit what we experience by filtering/censoring
In other words, instead of censoring globally, we should censor locally at a community level
I don't think it would be any easier if you can't take any recourse besides blacklisting a pubkey there could be billion billions of. Even things that have no gray area would be nearly impossible to curtail in large volumes.
What you won't be able to do is remove at the root, and instead you blacklist
My claim is that under a decentralized DNS, "removing" or "blacklisting" have the same effect on what you consume because you are always in control.
The BIG difference is that, under a decentralized DNS, no one controls anymore what OTHER people consume/trust. And I am strongly against of any group of people limiting how other groups communicate between themselves, even if these "other groups" are sharing child pornography. I'm open to some data about this, meanwhile I have a strong bias into thinking the cure is much worse than the disease
I'm really sorry, but this infrastructure has functioned for more than two decades. It takes a massive amount of manhours daily to deal with abuse. How can you unironically defend and claim that a system that removes most punitive measures will be good or usable? Is it delusion or naivety?