Freenet 2024 – a drop-in decentralized replacement for the web [video]

They don't want to hang you for it.

They just want you to never hear anything positive about homosexuality and the people they are hanging.

Understanding this is very difficult for people who support their governments form of censorship, like everyone working at googleface.

This would be an immediate DoS/censorship mechanism. Trolls would create a bunch of nodes and then have them all opt out of something they want to DoS so it falls out of the network.

> You could also store things using some distributed encryption whereby multiple parties have to be online for the content to reassemble in the clear and only on the viewers machine.

This is already how some of these systems work. The data distributed on the network is encrypted and to download it you get an identifier (e.g. a content hash) to locate it with along with the decryption key. The decryption key is only a few bytes and it can be included in the equivalent of a hyperlink. Without it anyone hosting the data can't read it.

Mega does something similar to this by putting the decryption key in the URL fragment so it isn't sent to the server but then client-side javascript has the key to decrypt the content with. This has poor security properties in their specific implementation because the server could be serving malicious javascript to extract the key, but new custom protocols don't have to allow that. Moreover, it might be worth something in terms of keeping attackers or insiders from snooping on their customers' data because someone with access to stored content might not necessarily have access to inject malicious scripts into client pages.

> You could add append style annotations so lies and misinformation at least has the opportunity of being challenged

This operates at a different layer, e.g. you could have a browser that does this and people could use it if they want to without building it into HTTP.

> You could have a more general region specific illegal content opt in for each node that has to be explicitly reaffirmed by the user, say every 30 days.

Then you would need someone to maintain all the lists even though it would be an exercise in futility rather than resulting in effective censorship of the material, since it would only cause it to be hosted in some other jurisdiction which every client could still transparently access as if nothing happened.

The problem here is that you either have an effective censorship apparatus or you don't. As soon as you have one, Saudi Arabia wants to enforce its blasphemy laws and China doesn't want anyone talking about Tank Man, which means you don't actually want one. Building half of one is just assisting the villains who want to build the whole thing.

> I'm not saying ban illegal content in the same way that the existence of stabbings doesn't mean you should ban knives, just make sure innocent people don't get flagged for it.

Prosecutors generally know the difference between "this is a crime ring" and "this is a Tor exit node". However, some of them are schmucks. The only real way to fix this is to make sure laws and courts don't allow them to ruin innocent lives, because the details of the technology aren't going to matter when someone who shouldn't be in a position of power has a vendetta that goes unchecked.

In the original Freenet (now Hyphanet) it does, because when several people you communicate with block something, it disappears for you, too. When that was added (years ago, because having no centralized power means it was needed much earlier), communication got much more friendly in a pretty short amount of time.

You can create a new ID to see it anyway — or explicitly make a spammer visible — but there’s usually no need, because you’ll actually not want to see stuff your friends identified as lies. And you can see who blocks what, so if you should doubt your friends (i.e. because something you like disappeared), you can stop their blocking from affecting you.

But... Are you implying that random people being unwittingly exposed to CSAM is somehow going to cause a reduction in production of CSAM? Because good lord, I'm not sure I can understand that train of thought.

I will however grant you the benefit of the doubt and engage further.

For you, child abuse might be an abstract concept. To me, it is gut-wrenching memories. I would have spared you the details, but it seems you prefer everything to be spelled out for you. So here it is.

I grew up in a country where impoverished families in rural areas often send their children to the city, supposedly to attend school. Instead of being educated or taken care of, many of these children are sent to beg on the streets, to bring back money, only to be beaten and starved until they meet their quotas. Some are raped. Some run away.

Of those who run away, some return home. When they do, their families often send them back, either because they don’t believe their stories, refuse to believe them, or simply cannot afford to keep them.

Those who don’t return end up living on the streets on their own, forming bands of children begging, stealing, and proudly telling you how they’re the ones buying the solvent to sniff for the group.

Despite witnessing this firsthand, I can only imagine that the full horror of it is far worse than I will ever understand.

To top it all, when I came back years to visit some friends I learned from social workers actually trying to get these children off the street that as they grow up some of the older kids actually often start raping the younger ones.

So, you see, I really could have been spared the lecture.

These experiences shape my deep concerns about the impacts of absolute anonymity and privacy. While I instinctively value these principles, actually understanding real-world implications make it difficult to hold them above all else without question.

There is a significant gap in our experiences. While I am glad many have no first or second hand knowledge on any of these topics, this gap might make it challenging for the two of us to have, on this topic, the fully rational discussion you appear to want.

Ironically, this difficulty perfectly underscores my point: while privacy and freedom of expression are crucial, some experiences compel me to question how we balance these ideals with the need to prevent harm.

Now, onto the censorship of evidence issue.

First, I fail to grasp how exposing unwitting people to this kind of content would, in any way, help find abusers. Your Vietnam war example might have been valid, arguably, if public awareness on the issue of child pornography needed to be raised. If, like during the Vietnam war, public opinion was divided on the topic. Thankfully, it isn’t.

Second, moderating such content doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t reported to law enforcement. Such systems already exist. They have their faults [0], but they exist.

> see, it’s much easier to have a rational discussion when you spell out your position instead of relying on winks and nudges

I assumed the issue was clear and didn’t want to force explicit details onto unwitting readers. I will not apologise for that.

[0]: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/929-On...