On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:06:35PM -0400, Ken Snider wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >>- 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). > > Yes, but this community is a global one, and any belief that there is a > "consensus" of morality in the global community is shortsighted and doomed > to failure, *especially* because these communities overlap for other > reasons, and as such, are likely to have overlapping trust relationships as > well.
You don't think there is a 95%+ consensus in the west on child porn being bad? > > >No, not the founders, the community as a whole. Only a few hops from me > >are people I vehemently disagree with on most issues. > > Yes, but your assumption suggests that the *majority* of Freenetters are > good, like-minded individuals. The recent "Brazillian invasion" stories > about Orkut are proof positive IMHO that a "darknet" (in the sense that > it's invitation-only) can and has been overtaken by parties who do not > share the viewpoints of the creators. Have you considered the possibility > that, through co-ordinated effort, freenet gets inundated with people that > *support* the very kinds of things you want to censor? Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minority, the expected result is that the minority would sever links with the invaders - as a normal part of an upheld complaint, because the minority would oppose the motion. > > >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. > > You can't perhaps, but that doesn't mean that your viewpoints are a global > majority, either. > > Let me give you another example - what if the government of a large western > state became corrupt, and the "liberal" folk wanted to blow the whistle, > but the majority supporters of said government wanted to keep it covered > up? Would it not be trivially easy to do so if said majority was *also* a > majority in freenet? This would _ONLY_ happen if the network was not a darknet. If people will always vote for the government in the face of the facts, it is normally because they know they're likely to get beaten up if they don't. Which is based on the assumption that the government knows about their nodes and will punish them if they vote incorrectly. > > In fact, would that not apply in the general sense? That the majority views > would trump minority views anywhere on freenet, regardless of whether the > viewpoint was the "correct" one? If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are not talking about global voting here, we are talking about each node deciding on the basis of adjacent, trusted nodes. Yes there is some influence as far as majorities go, but the likely scenario is that the network splits into the two groups. > > It would appear to me that voting can *only* work if you believe, without > exception, that the majority population is right 100% of the time. All you > have to do is look back to Germany during the WW to see that the majority > of a population *can* be convinced that morally reprehensible items are in > fact not so. > > >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? > > Because you're discounting people who may want to join the network for the > *express purpose* of censoring it. > > --Ken. -- 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]
