On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:52:30AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from > >Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me): > > *snip voting idea* > > not only do I think this won't work for philosophical reasons, but I think > it underlines one of the most fundamental *weaknesses* of the Darknet. Let > me explain: > > - Firstly, One of the first things that came to mind when you began this > quest to determine "trust", was that it creates a very real chance of > "groupthink" within freenet. Why? Because, while it is difficult to > quantify when the method to *determine* this trust is still largely > unknown, the reality is, there will likely be some "like-mindedness" in > those who *are* determined as "trustworthy" - this is further underlined by > numerous comments that the non-dark-freenet would still be there for the > "masses" - the implication is they won't be trusted and likely will have no > means to be.
Okay, and this is a bad thing because...? Communities usually have some level of shared values (and there will not just be one darknet although there is likely to be one large one and some smaller ones). > > Now, take this a step further. Lets assume for a moment a trust system > similar to PGP, where a number of existing nodes/Toad's > choices/known-good-nodes/etc become the "base" for the darknet - it's > assumed that you will need to somehow gain the trust of these core people > to join the darknet itself, which means, at some point, you'll be gaining > the approval of the "person" behind the node, in some way. > > Now, in a global community where in some parts of the world things like > same-sex marriage are a done deal, and in others it's a crime worthy of > execution, for example, how do you propose to ensure you have an acceptable > cross-section of "minds" behind the darknet? It's seems inevitable to me > that the "prevailing winds" of the collective morals of this core group > will go a long way to creating the prevailing moral authority for darknet, > even *without* a voting system in place - since you're not likely to > "trust" individuals with differing views from your own in most cases, and > unless this "trust" mechanism is somehow disconnected from people (which > would mean that a nefarious party would need only complete these machine > requirements to enter the darknet, so is likely not to be the case). Hmm. I'm not sure I follow. What is the threat here? > > Now, add voting to the mix. Allow this set of "prevailing morals" to be > *enforced* within freenet. This about guarantees, given the likely nature > of trust, that the aggregate "morality" of the founding Darknet nodes would > be preserved within freenet itself, since these founding nodes would have, > through overt act or merely by likelihood-of-association, chosen > like-minded trustees, who would vote as they do. No, not the founders, the community as a whole. Only a few hops from me are people I vehemently disagree with on most issues. > > You don't have to go to extremes like child-porn to see where this kind of > thing could have real-world consequences. Just take a few minutes and look > at the US mass media, even in the "land of the free" people are deeply, > deeply divided over issues far more benign, some of which on religious > grounds, some on moral, some on traditional grounds, some due to reasons I > have not even personally considered. Do you honestly believe that your > "trust-based" system will truly encompass even that diverse a set of > thinkers, in one country, let alone the rest of the world, especially in > cases where people may be far more polarized on certain topics? > > I see large cultural voting-bloc-type situations that, largely, will > maintain the status quo. But that's the thing - the "status quo" is > exactly, IMO, what the freenet should NOT be. You *want* the radical, > free-thinking underbelly of the world to have somewhere to go where they > can dissimate information that *may be* morally objectionable to large > swaths of the populous, even the populous of freenet (think religious or > cultural or political here - Tibet, scientology, women's rights, etc). What I can't honestly see why any sane informed human being who isn't a scientologist wouldn't support the dissemination of the OT documents. > good will freenet be if someone who thinks "against" the prevailing beliefs > of a region (but is otherwise "moral", for whatever that term can mean in > this context) is simply "Voted down" by those within their own culture that > may not agree? Sounds a fairly elitist argument. But lets say you're right. Why would people who would vote for political speech they disagree with to be censored even join the network? > > I think the voting would lead to almost a "constitutional" form of > "group-morals" that may or may not actually *be* altruistic - I think you'd > find human nature would lead to large groups of people voting down > information objectionable to *them* on cultural or religious grounds, that, > in the broader sense, should not be. > > I think this will be a darknet-wide problem in and of itself, mind you, but > voting will likely make the problem all the more extreme. Darknet is unavoidable. Without darknet, as soon as freenet works we have a 1 year countdown to it being completely dead. The voting idea is just a whacky idea I'm seeking comment on. > > Ken Snider -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
