On paper yes, great intentions[1], in practice no. E.g. Right to be forgotten.
Implement RTBF in context of IPFS.
[1] Second order effects like prevent rats/snakes by awarding award for rat/snake heads, lead to rat/snake farms.
> if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market
You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.
> Implement RTBF in context of IPFS.
How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it? Not saying it should detect CSAM, but once it is found, how does one go about having it removed? You use the same system to handle RTBF, and if you can't, then maybe a platform where it's literally impossible to delete something isn't a good idea (partly because undesirable content will ultimately outnumber legitimate content)?
> You get Splinternet. Several independent Internets, walled from each other.
If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!
The impossibility of the assured annihilation of data is true of all protocols for data retrieval so long as client nodes are free and able to copy the data retrieved.
It's why removal of illegal content from the internet has been an abysmal failure.
So do people with skeletons in the closet. Not saying you do, but right to be forgotten can infringe on other people's right to be well informed.
This is not a hypothetical. It has already happened.
> How does IPFS deal with CSAM being published on it?
Using CSAM to justify a law, is not a winning strategy.
It would be tedious but probably destroying all nodes. Which means IPFS is not compatible with RTBF.
> If there's an internet where Facebook and Google can't spy on me, sign me up!
That does leave state actors though.
Could you elaborate on the second order effects?
> even worse just retract from the market
I disagree that this is worse - if privacy-violating monopolies retract from the market then it opens the doors for privacy-respecting competition to take its place.