Comment by nnq

Besides the missed irony, I mean that we need to have and we'll inevitably have a separate internet layer / set of protocols / etc. where information will be freely broadcastable and exchangeable without enforcement of any laws. We de-facto have it now too, but it's practically geek-only hence no real "broadcast" to masses of people function can be achieved.

And that once such tech becomes usable by a large percent of the general population (by eg. allowing "unsecure" websites to "do anything") and we make the mistake to add a truly functional and anonymous money transfer technology to this layer of information tech, we're royally screwed as a species.

I obviously don't want a lawless and free for all regular/default internet because on the regular internet we exchange real money and we have real identities. I'm perfectly OK with having lawless layer of information exchange and broadcasting (it's just a natural generalization and globalization of "free speech" and I think it's crucial for humanity) and even working to making them usable by the general population, as long as we don't allow any serious kind of money transfer and commerce to happen through them. Eg. A psycho posting a killing video once a decade is no biggie and would happen anyway, let's at least enjoy it / groups of psycho creating a market and industry for their "products", not ok. Two random guys planning to meet to exchange some guns for some money is no biggie and already happens anyway; trading weapons on scales to supply real wars not ok. Etc.

De-facto "having sites op-out of anti-fraud legislation" or of "human rights" protections is already happening, and is less obvious because of the centralized nature of our current internet. A less centralized internet will just allow it to happen in the open in theory. Only it won't because since they're already doing other more serious illegal stuff and don't want to draw attention.

PP's "Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed" thinking was just funny and ridiculous at the same time: there's nothing bizzare, thing are already happening (naturally) like this, and ofc it's happening discretely (eg. having telegram or other messaging app groups instead of http websites but performing similar functions etc etc) and in the silence bc ppl doing them do even more illegal stuff and nobody wants attention from authority or ppl concerned with morality ...and I couldn't help make fun of it a bit. It's the kind of guys that argue against free speech and yell the "but think of the kids" argument at us all the time, and it's tiresome to have to trick them all the time since reasoning with them doesn't work...

So suggesting that maybe we should bring what's already happening anyway in the open, base it on more open standards technology, have it be indexable by search engines etc. :P I'd rather have a legal:any flag that I can add to a google search when I want to go off the beaten track then to have to switch the program/protocol I'm using (and the browser should make sure as hell I don't leak my identity and don't pay for anything on such unsafe sites), and that's the crux of it, the browser would know that a site is unsafe and needs total sandboxing simply because the site owner has decide to "opt out of the laws" - you realize that longer term when s settles down it's a win win situation for everyone if you just twist your mind out of the default narrative the current tech-corporate establishment is brainwashing you with...

(Or the "let's make a decentralized and truly free internet layer" into a real and usable thing... or the crypto-crimies will beat us to it and do a version that also has payments, generates obvious disasters/wars etc., and then is taken over by big gov and turned to a totalitarian nightmare with social credit tracking extra features" argument.)