Your plan is to create a centralized list of things "good and moral people" should avoid, that only good and moral people will opt-into? That's a funny strategy for several reasons.. First - do you really want "bad guys" to have a list of all the content they shouldn't have? Might as well call it do-not-read.txt. Secondly, if the system is opt-in for "good and moral people", will that really do anything to stop the distribution of content on do-not-read.txt among "bad and immoral" group?

I'm personally glad that the fathers of the internet had better things to do than moralizing legality.

Its not about "good and moral" vs "bad and immoral", but "legal" vs "illegal". Blacklists are not currently implemented in IPFS but one imagined a solution, where people opt-in to their e.g. state-supplied blacklist to prevent run-ins with the government, which could say "if you aid criminals by providing them with illegal content, we will hold you accountable for it". In the end, it is probably nothing more than a facade to appease governments that in the end will come up with something similar ineffective.

you mean, illegal in Russia? Or Uganda?

Depends on which risks/rewards you want to take on, just like today. If you live in China, you might want to adhere to the Chinese blacklist, but outside of it, you probably don't care, since the Chinese government also doesn't seem to care _that_ much.

> since the Chinese government also doesn't seem to care _that_ much

Sounds like the opposite of something most would consider "important".

Since the content is encrypted, how would you blacklist any content? The nodes don't know what kind of material they are hosting.

You don't blacklist based on content, but on the hashes of the content, which the nodes have to know. At one point or another, the decryption key has to be shared for the encrypted content to be usable for anyone, and if the copyright holders get a hold of that key, they can prove a violation and blacklist the hash of the content.

You do realize though that changing just 1 bit can change the entire hash? What's to prevent people from appending a random bit or two, and getting an entirely new, unblocked, hash?

I was just explaining the general concept. I don't claim to have in depth knowledge on the subject.

I think blocking a hash can already be a victory, since it basically makes all the metadata that was associated with the hash useless and forces reseeding under a new hash and publicizing that hash. As long as you make it inconvenient enough, very few people will bother, which is the best the copyright holders can hope for.

Reseeding might be pretty easy though in IPFS since there is a block layer below the object layer, and I guess you can't really block block-hashes.

Responding to specific take down requests is enough to activate the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA. Legally they don't have to do anything else.

Great point; this happens a lot with YouTube videos, and would definitely get worse with other sorts of media

If you're hosting something such as a movie, and it's blacklisted, couldn't you just add a small amount of noise to the video file to make it unblacklistable?

For now, but this sounds like a problem machine learning was built to solve. Youtube has issues because with the sheer volume of video they don't have the silicon to transcode/examine every frame, but on a more limited network with less traffic such analysis might be doable. The more "variations" people introduce in response, the larger the training set for the algorithm.

What if I just encrypt the video before I put it on the network and use a side-channel to distribute the key? ML gonna have a tough time with that.

Yes, this is an adversarial machine learning problem. I highly doubt those kind of measures would be implemented by file coin though, considering the cost of scanning files for such at scale. I'm sure, at least in the short term, it will likely be some time of hash or edit distance measure (or an equally naive and easy to fool approach).

I guess that depends on how things are being blacklisted.

Exactly. YouTube has the same problem and does all kinds of things to detect this. They have the benefit of already having the media on all their own storage which they can run a map-reduce on, however.