Disclaimer: I wrote this article and made this website.
There was some talk of this issue in the recent fediverse inefficiencies thread. I’m hopeful that in the future we’ll have a decentralized solution for file hosting but for now I deeply believe that users should pay for their own file hosting.
We totally need sustainable file hosting. Freedom!
Wait… the fuck did you just upload? Oh god. Oh god no. Do I have to call the cops on you? Oh no. Wait, does this count as possession? FUCK!!!
We need someone else to handle the totally sustainable file hosting. Freedom!
Seems to me that this is a use-case
FreenetHyphanet would be good for, both because it distributes the problem of file storage load and because it eliminates responsibility for each host to police his node by making it impossible for anyone to know which file chunks said node is hosting.Nothing solves the problem of CSAM quite like… making everyone partially culpable in the storage and distribution of CSAM.
Stuff that isn’t accessed eventually gets deleted. If the Lemmy instances (which are clearnet, of course) delete the references to it, it would go away.
Which gets back to volunteers going through and moderating it. And the ethical and moral question of whether people who upload it are reported.
And… honestly? if there is even a 20% chance that running a file sharing node (because I just love to give away both bandwidth and storage…) is being used to store CSAM? I ain’t doing that shit and most people will similarly run screaming and call the cops.
Yep, there needs to be moderation tools that can be quickly deployed to stop the illegal/immoral/evil stuff from spreading and taking over self-hosted servers.
And moderation of this kind of content almost always sounds like torture when you hear about what facebook and the like are outsourcing.
Theoretically, this is a good problem for computer vision/machine learning. But there are a LOT of false positives (I think it was Aftermath who did an article on a study of when a nipple becomes female?). And… what ethical responsibility do you have to report on the fiftieth time that SheIsReallyAnEightThousandYearOldDragon_6969 uploaded CSAM? And how quick do you think people are going to lose faith in you and start wondering if you’ll also report on the rampant piracy?
And… there are also false negatives. At which point you find out you have been hosting something truly heinous for the past few months… possibly when local law enforcement tells you.
Like a lot of things: it sounds great. But nobody in their right mind is going to host this for free. And once you start accepting money you start opening yourself up to a LOT of regulations.
A nipple becomes female precisely when it wants to!
Nipples are wizards, confirmed.
It doesn’t even have to be to that extent, just being able to slow/stop that awful content from being uploaded by a bunch of malicious bots. Even if it’s not malicious content, you could still have people uploading spam that eats up the server space.
Illegal I can begrudgingly agree with. Even though I am a proponent for piracy, I will conceed that for growth’s sake, the tools need a clear well defined path to moderation.
That being said, who’s to say what IS immoral and evil?
In the republicans minds, porn is evil and should be banned. Trans rights are evil and should be banned. Abortion is evil and should be banned.
I disagree with all those claims. I do not think any of them are immoral, or evil.
I think pineapple on pizza is wrong, and evil. Some agree, others don’t. If I had my way, promoting of pineapple on pizza would be banned.
Now, who’s to say what is, and what isn’t evil? I think the only clear line to a moderation approach is to have a clear, unquestionable set of rules. These rules are to be based on public laws.
Everything else, I feel you should have the freedom to do as you wish. But also, I believe other people that you don’t agree with should be free to do as they wish.
You may never know how someone feels, or understand their perspective, but as long as they aren’t breaking laws, I feel they should have the ability to feel that way consequence free.
I may not like that you put pineapples on your pizza, but I feel that you should have the right to enjoy it. Even if it goes against MY views as to what constitutes a REAL pizza! Much to my surprise, pineapple on pizza ISN’T illegal. So you should have the right to enjoy it…
And yes. I did take the most pandtentic example I could think of, in order to display the absurdity of the concept of how easy it is to accept others rights in this world that don’t affect you.
Now just apply that same concept to every other example in the world. Then take into consideration that by using vague undefined terms to define your rules, you create grey area that’s easy to exploit. Who’s to say what IS evil? Adults told their teenagers in the 1950s that Elvis was evil. Parents in the 1920s told their teenagers that jazz was evil.
We need to define the terms that define our rules.
I would say you go to the extremes and work back from there for what’s immoral/evil.
In the federated world it’s the moderators and admins who get to make the rules and/or decide what they deem appropriate. It’s as simple as that.