Does the following make sense:
If people would really care about censorship resistance, we wouldn’t need a protocol that enforces it, we could just agree on a social level that we will not censor each other or kick the ones out that do (is that itself a form of censorship?).
But people don’t really care, so we invent protocols that acknowledge that they don’t but show what’s in it for them.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
I think generally people don’t care because they have not been censored. You create the protocols so they are available when people need them. I don’t think we can just agree on a social level to not censor each other because it will always be to the benefit of those those that hold power and those that seek to retain power to censor those that interfere with their aims.
Imagine there’s a magic website that cannot be taken down, everybody has full control over what you can view on it after they said they care about censorship resistance and there’s also a magic way to detect if they start censoring, in which case we “undo the censorship” and kick them out instead.
Would we still need a protocol that enforces that censorship is impossible?
Or I guess what I described would still count as a protocol even if it involves magic 🤔