[Freedombox-discuss] Censorship that we can agree on

[Eugen Leitl]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:15:36PM -0700, Robert Connolly wrote:

> I am very interested in the future of the internet, humanity, and how  

I don't know what the internet it. I presume you mean the Internet.

> data is being collected on me, and other people. I am opposed to  
> censorship, but there are exceptions.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

> I like the idea of Tor and Freedombox, but I have conditions.
>
> I checked out a network that sounded like Freedombox, and found that it  
> was loaded with disturbing child porn... stuff that very few people  

Weird, I have never yet seen child porn on the wider Internet nor
on Tor. I presume you actively looked for it. Nobody who doesn't search
for gets it shoved into their unwilling faces.

> would agree is acceptable for public view. Stuff that isn't funny.
>
> I am concerned that at some point the free software philosophy community  
> will be at odds with this, and I want it to be discussed.

Censorship-resistant means exactly what it says. You can't
remove content, but if it bothers it, you can filter it on
end user end. Manually, because blacklists will get abused
in no time at all.

> I suggest that Freedombox develops some way to allow content to voted  
> for deletion.

I suggest that we should limit ourselves to the feasible.

> In other words, I want to help my community, but I am not willing to  
> route child porn.

Easy, just discard packets with the EVIL bit set.

> I want this to be discussed well, so we have a solid platform and  
> constitution.

I recommend you reconsider what you're asking for.

> Please comment