It seems to make things better like client privacy, server versioning and censorship of good actors.
As usual, nobody bothered to worry about problems it worsens. Do we want more anonymity and less censorship for bad actors?
Good and bad may be subjective, but nearly everyone looks at that issue pragmatically in some instances (to pick an unlikely example: some demented billionaire buying nukes), and in tech we seem incapable of accounting for that.
The people who produce anti-censorship tools usually philosophically believe that it’s not the job of a communications tool to enforce acceptable speech.
It’s sort of like complaining that making it easier to vote brings the average voter education level down. The people making it easier are certainly aware but don’t think it’s right to make it more difficult to vote.
The first paragraph is a good assessment of the current state of affairs.
That said, it's not a given that it be all or nothing. In fact, my complaint is specifically that we don't often ask such questions.
There might be ways we haven't exploited yet to disincentivize certain behaviors. Whoever invented Bitcoin, for example, had to take problems with incentives into account that, at first glance, seem intractable.
Given the way the internet turned out, we should think seriously about how people wind up using new tech in practice, rather than assume everything will just work itself out for the best.
A lot of it is cynisism about people complaining about bad actors. The sorts of people who would build an anti-censorship tool are likely to be motivated, at least partly, be disdain for the censors of the day.
'Oh, now you want thoughtful dialogue, and a discussion. And then, when the reins of power are installed and your ilk have taken them, you'll be sneering as you kick me out.' - Something like that is a relatively common sentiment. Assuage this sentiment, and you might succeed.
> In fact, my complaint is specifically that we don't often ask such questions.
But tons of people do, all the time. There has been excessive pearl clutching about making it easier to spread ideas since the invention of the printing press.
It seems to make things better like client privacy, server versioning and censorship of good actors.
As usual, nobody bothered to worry about problems it worsens. Do we want more anonymity and less censorship for bad actors?
Good and bad may be subjective, but nearly everyone looks at that issue pragmatically in some instances (to pick an unlikely example: some demented billionaire buying nukes), and in tech we seem incapable of accounting for that.