Until now censorship advocates have restricted themselves to demanding that institutions that already have the power to censor use this power. The idea that we should systematically centralize information, to make it possible to censor it, is new and worse. And why stop at IPFS? What about HTTP? Maybe it's not such a good idea to allow everyone to have a website. Look at 8chan. Maybe it would be better if all discussion happened under the benevolent moderation of facebook and youtube.
I would have thought that even people who are in favor of some censorship recognize that most censorship is not "benevolent". That even though they might dislike that IPFS will make it harder for facebook and youtube to decide what people are allowed to think, they would like that it will also make it harder for the governments of russia and china, and that this would more then make up for it.
I would have thought that even people who are in favor of some censorship recognize that most censorship is not "benevolent". That even though they might dislike that IPFS will make it harder for facebook and youtube to decide what people are allowed to think, they would like that it will also make it harder for the governments of russia and china, and that this would more then make up for it.