So we have some kind of semantic masturbation going on here. Let's be clear on one thing. Part of why we wanted to build something decentralized is to circumvent censorship of any kind. Offering a censored product/service to the public under the guise of decentralization is a contradiction. Unless your goal of decentralizing something doesn't include the idea of evading control/censorship
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My idea of decentralization is that someone could provide a service that evades control censorship. It doesn't mean that everyone is forced to do so. If someone wants to build a "My ABCs!" app that runs on Hive, I don't think we have to tell them it isn't permitted because their app doesn't allow someone else to post about their 1953 Ford fetish. They should both be allowed
If someone wants to provide a service on Hive, and they are able to do it, decentralization is winning
If someone wants to provide a service on Hive, and they are not able to do it, then I think there is a problem
To say that deathwing's service should not be allowed, and someone else's service should be allowed based on the some person or group's determination would be the opposite of what I want to see
It's not even close
You can't build a censorship resistant platform on Facebook or Twitter
I am saying that people thinking similar to Facebook or Twitter should be allowed to build on Hive and use Hive
I also think that people with counter thinking should be allowed to build on Hive and use Hive
As an example, the Proof of Brain tribe could build a censorship-resistant blogging platform on Hive with token rewards and offer a public api to support that mission. Deathwing would have absolutely zero power to stop that
At the same time, the Fords Only tribe could start a censorship-resistant blogging platform on Hive with token rewards and offer a public api that doesn't allow transactions from known Chevy lovers. We have absolutely zero power to stop that
And that is decentralization. There isn't some central authority that determines what you are allowed to build, what you are allowed to say, what you must not build, or what you must say. You are not granted that authority over the rest of us. Deathwing isn't granted that authority over the rest of us
**edit since the prev post was edited:
I would say you are trying to force censorship by telling deathwing and others they may not offer their services. Your position is authoritarian and demands that people only run the code you permit them to run
It is censorship - but it isn't Hive, and it isn't an account being censored on Hive. It's accounts being censored on deathwing's api node that he offers to the public for free
If witnesses were modifying hived to censor accounts, I would join your chorus, but that isn't anything like what is happening here
Hive is far more censorship resistant than any public api node
Any given public api node may be more or less censorship resistant than deathwing's public api node
This is where we fundamentally disagree, I think - I want Hive to be decentralized. The services that run on Hive are then free to do as they please. Say I want to send someone 5 HIVE - that is my decision to make. 100% centralized on me. Perfectly ok for that to be centralized. If I want to build a browser extension that reads a list of users from a post and hides any posts from that user on ecency.com, that is censorship and very centralized. Also totally fine. Why should someone have the authority to tell me I am not allowed to do that? Why should someone be allowed to tell me I am not allowed to offer that to my friends? Decentralization is that freedom. Take away that freedom, and you take away decentralization
So of course people are free to offered censorship heavy dapps, api nodes, front-ends, browser extensions, or anything else that run on Hive. Hive is decentralized and strongly censorship resistant. They can run those services for the same reason that others can run services that avoid censorship
I don't really understand how Murhpy's law applies here. You saying since it exists, someone will abuse it? Like if humans are allowed to use the internet, they might all use it wrong, so we need the government to go through and take it away from them all? It's just the logical path