On Sunday 27 May 2001 22:09, Sam Joseph said: > Tim Murray wrote: Whose Tim? I only know of a Timm around here :)
> > Sam Joseph wrote: > > > If you send an image > > > of me being brutally raped to somebody who gets off on looking at > > that > > > > kind of thing, then you are hurting me. Maybe you can say that I > > > shouldn't care, but you can't tell me that you are not hurting me. > > > > > > What happens to my right to not have those kinds of images of myself > > > > > > shown to other people? > > > > > > Think about the situation where someone gets images of me without my > > > > > > permission, and distributes them ... > > > > We always knew Freenet would be used for generaly evil things, like > > child > > > pornography. It's simply inevitable being that there are people > > around who > > > create and consume that kind of information, and not making Freenet > > would not > > > stop them. > > Sure, but it might make it easier for those people to distribute the > material without being called to account for it. > > > We simply hope that any such abuse of Freenet is far outweighed > > by the potential ammount of good it can bring. If you don't think the > > good > > > in Freenet will outweigh the bad, don't use it (which you apparently > > have > > > already done). > > I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't build Freenet, or that people > in general shouldn't use it. > > Clearly any technology can be used for good or bad. One of the things > with Freenet that distinguishes it from some others, is that when I use > it I am putting resources into a common pool (I guess I can set my local > cache size to zero), and although some of those resources get used for > good things, others get used for bad. And I still say that if you don't feel that the ammount of potential good those resources may be used for outweigh the potential bad, then don't use Freenet. I personaly feel that the potential for good is paramount to the potential bad, so I have no problems dontanating my resources into the common pool. Of course, I'm also a hopelessly idealistic GNUist. Your milage may vary, except where prohibited by law. > > I was trying to discuss with you guys why I should feel uncomfortable > about the idea that I have child porn on my hard disk. What you are > saying Tim, is that that is a necessary evil if we want to ensure free > speech. Yes. There will always be people who abuse free speech, and there will always, as long as humans are imperfect, be people who will try to squelch free speech for their own ends. I came to the conclusion a long time ago (well over five minutes) that you will ultimately be stuck with complete anarchy or complete control. Now, I for one don't think anarchy is sustainable (shut up, Travis), but I fear complete control much more. So, I go on with Freenet, knowing that it will be abused, but working away from control. Also note that this is not my main reason for being a part of this project. I also enjoy having lots of facinating problems to solve, and Freenet provides no end to those. The day we start talking about how "stable" and "efficecint" and how it's just some bug fixes and a few small features from here on out, that will be the day I go find a new project. > > Now maybe it is and maybe it isn't but it seems to me that a far more > effective way to support free speech would be to go around trying to > convince people it's a good idea, rather than trying to create a system > that forces it down their throat. There are plenty of societies and > cultures that don't believe in the Western liberal doctrine of free > speech etc. Who are you to decide that those cultures are outright > wrong, and put the values of the individuals above that of the socieyt? > I'm not saying that you shouldn't. I just want you to be aware that you > are making a value judgement. I also don't want to leave those cultures without the oppertunity to become free. I'm not raming anything down anybody's throat, I'm just helping a project which gives them a new opertunity. It's up to them to download Freenet and install it (I got this nasty twitch when Aaron suggested we make a virus that installs a Freenet node on people's computer (Bad Aaron! Bad!)). > > It seems to me that you have already decided that anonymous free speech > is something that should be forced on all societies independent of > whether they ask for it or not. Ha, I like that image: Me: Be free, damnit! *WACK* Oppressed person of some country with a name like "Jiowkshstan": OUCH, please, I don't want liberty! Me: You will have liberty or you will die *WACK* > Now don't get me wrong, I repeat, don't > get me wrong. I personally think that free speech (although not > necessarily the anonymous part) is a very good thing, it's just that you > are setting yourselves up for confrontation with a lot of cultures that > may just go around and prevent people from running Freenet nodes at all, > what does that solve? You are taking on a confrontational stance, that > invites confrontation. Now confronting a bunch of evil tyrannts, thats a great image. > > Seems to me that the purpose of free speech, basic human rights and so > forth is better served by discussing ideas with people rather than > creating secure channels of anonymous file distribution. How can we discuss it (safely) without a secure, anonymous channel? -- Timm Murray . . . example of a mobious. This sentance is an example of a mobious. This sentance is an . . . _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
