What if there is complete decentralization and a large amount of terrorist violence fills the internet,how can we do ,we don’t want to see massa became a terrorism technology.
Do we have a specific and feasible solution to solve this problem？
1 Like
HI! we’re right now thinking about implementing a decentralized moderation mechanism with a blacklist, and guidelines in the community charter for what is unacceptable. Let us know if you have better ideas !
1 Like
Does it mean the community could decide to censor perfectly legal words?
What tradeoffs between “what is politically acceptable” VS “what is legal” VS “the freedom of speech” do you envision (if any)?
1 Like
tks seb，The more comprehensive our considerations are, the more stable our network becomes.
Murder, gun trading, crime，maltreat…… If given full rights，Our massa will be turned into an accomplice of demons, This goes against the original intention of most node stakers.
I was not aware you know the “original intention of most node stakers”.
Sadly, massa already provides the infrastructure for all the bad guys you’re mentioning to exchange information.
Understanding all this, I’m urgently stopping my node.
so.have you sold all your MAS?
Sorry, but this idea is absolutely ridiculous. Blockchain should be 100% decentralized
No one should control it. Implementing this would turn it into just another scammy decentralized shitcoin.
1 Like
Of course, I’ve sold 2M from my 1M balance 
Hey Arron, sounds like you are auditioning to be the Internet Police !
But here is a twist: one man’s “terrorism” might be another man’s freedom fighter.
Decentralization is not about playing judge and jury, it is about giving everyone a voice, even if it is one you do not agree with.
3 Likes
To be more precise we are thinking of the following:
- disclaimers and community charters
- the whitelist/blacklist system for providers is already implemented, but might be expanded to on-chain lists
- this: https://forum.massa.community/t/voting-for-ledger-alteration
Note that none of those proposals break the existing immutability or security properties of the blockchain.
1 Like
Don’t forget to stop your bitcoin nodes as well Child abuse imagery found within bitcoin's blockchain | Bitcoin | The Guardian
1 Like
done!
Also trashed of all my money 'cause evil is everywhere https://x.com/i/status/1760266532532134184
If you wish to have total control over the on-chain activity to avoid “criminal” activity, you probably don’t want a decentralized permissionless system. Any sufficiently used blockchain will have those actors, and there is no way to avoid it. Only web2 tech can have that sort of moderation in place, and based on the amount of lawsuits against tech companies, even them cannot cope with it.
Every jurisdiction will have different laws as to what’s a crime and what isn’t. It is simply impossible to reconcile all of them. The responsibility is on users to respect their own laws, node operators cannot be expected to comply with all laws everywhere at all times.
Just take for example authoritarian regimes that want to make “disinformation” illegal and promotes their version of the truth. Other jurisdictions will probably qualify their actions as censorship or propaganda.
Freedom of exchange is for everyone. Otherwise it’s not really a freedom, nor a human right.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. No matter what some jurisdictions will argue, the fact that you build tech that allows such actions is not on the responsibility of the creators or operators, but on users.
Having the tools to defend democracy means letting people do their own choices, and to have a choice, you need options. Shutting down everything due to one bad actor is not a resilient strategy, if we do this there are no tools left to defend fundamental human rights. What’s more is that if we shutdown tools that allow normal users to act freely, all that remains is tech made by “criminals” for “criminals”, because they will not respect your jurisdiction.
The middle ground decentralisation is advocating for is the only option to preserve those rights for all. We build tools, users are responsible for their own actions while using them 
2 Likes
Perfect.
The best reply
Hi
I don’t want any control, and I wish nobody have any.
I was sarcastic (it seems I failed, unless you didn’t want to reply to me) in reaction to Arron messages.
Edit:
I agree with your points.
1 Like
From another perspective, since Massa blockchain network is completely transparent, even if there is evil, it is transparent. As long as it is connected to reality, the evidence can be traced back.
I’m not sure that the statement “Massa’s blockchain network is completely transparent” is 100% correct (I hope it isn’t).
That said, I take it for granted, so I don’t see a need for controls and I agree that “the evidence can be traced back”, so implementing controls or ledger mutability seems outside the scope of the project.
1 Like
tks,massa is a free world, Both good and bad are natural existences.
I believe Arweave has a similar problem, but larger than Massa due to the file sizes people can upload. I think there’s some inspiration and example to be taken from their ecosystem, for example here:
I think they’re right in separating storing/uploading, serving files to users, and users themselves.
In the end, you can’t do much about the encrypted files, unless there’s active management with other sources online that for example hold registries of hashes of encrypted files with illicit documents. Checking that could flag/mark some uploaded docs as illicit. It’ll be a continuous work in progress