Darknets like Freenet and GNUnet have been tried, and failed to become fast enough. Today's appstores will ban their apps for hate speech, while FBI & co will flood them with pedo content. The Deep State wants and created Big Tech and other oligopolies that they can control, unlike a million small actors. I'm not so optimistic about a technological solution to a political/criminal problem.
What I'm describing would be based on blockchain so anonymity would be out the window but the ability to moderate by swarm enforcement of key access rules on who can and can't do what with binaries.
So for example, let's say communities.win is a collection of blockchannels. Nothing would obligate KIA2.win's blockchannel owning key to opt into communities.win's ACLs. But if they wanted to subscribe to a collective .win "porn offender / fbi false flag suspects" blockchannel's key restrictions, they could. The obvious retort is they can just spam new keys, to which the obvious reply is that binary adds will probably have to be whitelisted behavior in practice, and ultimately explicit whitelisting for all key activities would probably become the norm.
The functioning of the system would simply hinge on the majority of the swarm of clients being conforming clients that respect the ACLs in updating the blockchannel, and rejecting updates that don't conform.
This idea is sized around relatively small swarms, probably a thousand or less members. I have no fucking idea how badly it would scale but my gut says not well. Horizontally it would scale great (bittorrent) in terms of supporting infinite blockchannels. But vertically it would scale badly for supporting more activity on a given blockchain.
Darknets like Freenet and GNUnet have been tried, and failed to become fast enough. Today's appstores will ban their apps for hate speech, while FBI & co will flood them with pedo content. The Deep State wants and created Big Tech and other oligopolies that they can control, unlike a million small actors. I'm not so optimistic about a technological solution to a political/criminal problem.
Those were based emphasizing anonymity.
What I'm describing would be based on blockchain so anonymity would be out the window but the ability to moderate by swarm enforcement of key access rules on who can and can't do what with binaries.
Each blockchannel (© Piroko, 2021) would maintain its own ACLs and either a whitelist and/or blacklist, which can either be directly maintained or subscribed to other blacklists / whitelists from other blockchannels. So for example you could have large, community managed "known offender keys" blockchannel (or even multiple competing ones). But the decision to subscribe into them would be on the individual blockchannel owners.
So for example, let's say communities.win is a collection of blockchannels. Nothing would obligate KIA2.win's blockchannel owning key to opt into communities.win's ACLs. But if they wanted to subscribe to a collective .win "porn offender / fbi false flag suspects" blockchannel's key restrictions, they could. The obvious retort is they can just spam new keys, to which the obvious reply is that binary adds will probably have to be whitelisted behavior in practice, and ultimately explicit whitelisting for all key activities would probably become the norm.
The functioning of the system would simply hinge on the majority of the swarm of clients being conforming clients that respect the ACLs in updating the blockchannel, and rejecting updates that don't conform.
This idea is sized around relatively small swarms, probably a thousand or less members. I have no fucking idea how badly it would scale but my gut says not well. Horizontally it would scale great (bittorrent) in terms of supporting infinite blockchannels. But vertically it would scale badly for supporting more activity on a given blockchain.