Paul Frambot 🦋
@paulframbot
There's an intriguing moral paradox in Pavel's arrest, and it is, to me, all about ownership. Car manufacturers aren't arrested because criminals use their car. However, Pavel was arrested because criminals used his app. I see a lot of people, including me, feeling bitter about this arrest and worried about what it means for their personal privacy and freedom. Yet, it's widely considered immoral to remain passive when one has the direct ability to prevent immoral actions, especially serious offenses like child exploitation. If Telegram's technology had been decentralized to the point where Pavel clearly couldn't influence what was happening on the platform, it's unlikely anyone would attempt to arrest him or accuse him of anything. Why? ... 1/2
10 replies
40 recasts
121 reactions
Paul Frambot 🦋
@paulframbot
The owner is the one accountable, and Telegram still retains ownership of our conversations. (Disclaimer: While I'm not familiar with the technical details, it appears that the platform is highly centralized.) One owns its car, but one doesn’t (yet) own its conversations. IMO, true freedom of speech can only be achieved through genuinely decentralized protocols where the speech is "owned" by the users. I'm optimistic that 1- we can address this issue in the coming years and 2- this progress should ensure that no one ever questions the accountability of builders again, just as no one questions those who developed HTTP, RSS, etc. (bullish farcaster) 2/2
4 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
mactar
@mactar
Wait, I thought TPS was the value prop of crypto?🙃
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
