> it was an interesting experiment in humanity.
How so? Atleast one guy did something that made you shut it down. What insight does that give? Surely you knew there is at least one bad guy using the internets before the experiment?
How so? Atleast one guy did something that made you shut it down. What insight does that give? Surely you knew there is at least one bad guy using the internets before the experiment?
Yes, I knew that there could be abuse, but I didn't know how the abuse would come. As I said, I learned, it cost me very little to do.
> What insight does that give?
For one, how do you maintain a service that actually has traffic. At the time I had very little experience with mass amounts of users. You can build personal websites all day long and still never know what it is like to handle high levels of traffic.
Additionally, given the type of content I received on the service, how could I handle the patterns of use better and encourage the sharing I wanted from users? Given the type of content I got very clear patterns developed that if I wanted to expand I could have.
> Surely you knew there is at least one bad guy using the internets before the experiment?
Yea, there are people with ill intent on the internet and they are constantly attempting to break into my servers as we speak. Why would I use that as a reason to not offer something online? This reason alone, shouldn't be a deterrent.
I ran a Tor exit node once. However I pulled out once I realized what kind of traffic I could be relaying. I guess it is a similar learning experience.
The proportion of disreputable things on Tor might be higher, but it's a difference in degree, not in kind. And the proportion of dissidents trying not to be killed by their own government and Ukrainians trying not to be killed by Russians is higher too.
Because the other examples you mention, are corporations with lawyers. They (usually) won’t get a random police raid, and even if, it’d not be as potentially disastrous as it would be for a random person.
But in any event that seems like more of an argument for not running one at your house than for having some moral objection in this case but not to any of those corporations transferring the same content.
And I guess you could interpret GP’s comment as moral, I was reading it as legal, but there’s no real sign one way or the other.