Hello It becomes too much to answer every post that questions my position individualy and I run into danger of arguing about details which do not bother me. So I will try to sum up what I can gather together so far.
Clearly my position is an abstract or philosophycal one as I do not content myself with the practical implications of realising an anonymous network. Moreover I do not have spend any comparable amount of time with evaluating and thinking about the implications of this task as probably most of you have. Initialy I wanted to let you now why I can not participate by hosting a node from the angle of my ethics and ask you what the term 'freedom of speech' means to you. I hooked my reasoning on my strong objections against pornography, but the core issue I want to address applies to every content which contradicts my beliefs. It makes little sense to argue about those beliefs in particular, because I can hardly spend the next few months in writing an autobiography which puts those into reasonable context. Actualy the main issue I wanted to point out is that my understanding of the term freedom is not represented in the philosophical framework properly; it is there, in my personal view, mixed up with the term 'free flow of speech'. As I presently have no need for anonymous net-technology, this in conjunction with the uncertainity what kind of contents would be served from a node on my machine and which could violate may understanding of freedom in general, made me come to the decision to not host such a node. There are certainly people that do need such technologies urgently for reasons that are in line with my beliefs what freedom means. Therefor I am glad that the Freenetproject exists. And that there are those that take upon themselves developing and maintainig this framework. The question whether or not a carrier is responsible for the contents that are propagated through it came up. My opinion on this issue is as follows: In theory most certainly yes. In praxis no reasonable measure of control is fesible by the sheer amount and kind of data that flows, not to speak of the contradictions this would throw up against the objectives of the project. I think that here the intentions of the ones opening the channels come into play; if those intentions are to serve the greater whole then I do not see a problem. On the other hand if the intention is to propagate any sort of greedy or violent selfengrandisment then it is most certainly no good for anyone. These intentions clearly pertain to the philosophy of the project, i. e. are the source thereof. As I actualy do not have the time to explore the intentions of every single individual involved in this project and I do not clearly see the line in the philosophy as outlined on the webpage, I stick with believing in the good, this believe is justified by most of the posts that followed up my initial writing, and wish you well with your task. Regards Waldo __________________________________________________ Yahoo! Plus For a better Internet experience http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer _______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
