Brings into question whether or not they truly want to decentralize it. Think about it... how do you decentralize information while retaining centralized like control in order to abide by DMCA's? Or blanket ban Alex Jones? Now that doesn't mean this content can't be distributed. If I understand correctly, anyone can already download any video and re-host it themselves out of the kindness of their heart. There's no monetary incentive for this however, and it has to be done manually. So it would appear that all that's really needed would be a platform to monetize and automate this while retaining the ability to remove content to satisfy DMCA's, or whatever else someone doesn't like. You wouldn't actually need to incorporate any of the existing decentralized applications, and there wouldn't really be a need for encryption since the files are publicly available anyway. In the end though, none of these types of platforms will truly be decentralized because well... people just simply aren't ready to accept the consequences of decentralization yet. You know, I find it ironic that we've practically banned freedom of speech because of our intolerance, yet we continue to do things like pay taxes and suck down fluoride without question. Really makes you wonder who's actually in control.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm not quite enough obsessed with conspiracies to ask that question. Especially since given a fair amount of experience with large projects and the necessity of making certain concessions in order to get a project working at all, much less how you want it to work, I've been there.
There are certainly ways to have decentralized file storage and be compatible with the DMCA and have some degree of control of content visibility – and the secret is just that, visibility. Whether things are visible to a user is an entirely different thing to whether or not it's being stored in a distributed manner. In fact, these are orthogonal things; they have nothing to do with one another.
I think people are perfectly ready to deal with the results of decentralization and in fact are eager for the effects of decentralization, and in fact really want the results of decentralization, especially when it comes to distribution of file storage on the backend of a database, which is what we're talking about.
But, like I said, I'm not about to take up conspiracy when a perfectly reasonable, logical, and sensible explanation which doesn't require hidden motives is clearly available.
You can continue to see secret lizards under every face, but that doesn't change the mechanics of the world.
I'm not claiming conspiracy. Or are you just reacting to my mention of Alex Jones (who I do not support by the way) which I was simply using as a recent and well known example of censorship which in itself might very well be a conspiracy, but that's irrelevant to this conversation.
There's a big difference between decentralized and distributed. Decentralized meaning there is no central authority or control, and distributed meaning the data itself is not centralized however control over it still is. You cannot truly decentralize while retaining control to censor without the consent of the majority. So the real question is how to distribute the data in a way that takes advantage of some aspects of decentralization while retaining the control to censor, because let's face it... even though many of us are willing to accept the consequences of decentralization in the interest of freedom, the vast majority are not.
I may be wrong, but it sounds to me like your focusing mainly on the benefits of decentralization from a technical standpoint and what that means for computing and I completely agree with that viewpoint. On the other hand, most people outside of the tech world associate "decentralization" solely with eliminating central authority which, aside from greed, is the driving force behind decentralized currencies in the first place.
What I mean by saying people are not ready for the consequences of true decentralization is that people have to be tolerant of material they don't like or agree with since the very nature of decentralization means giving up the ability to censor all the ugliness that comes with it. Until people wake up and accept the personal responsibility that's required for our freedom we will never have true decentralization (or freedom for that matter). People not wanting that responsibility is what got us into the mess were in in the first place.
I support Alex Jones. Why not support him or Tommy Robinson or Veritas or Mark Dice? Why not?