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

Co-founder & CEO at @morpho labs. Making financial infrastructure a public good.

Great analysis. The question is, if the service was decentralized, could all operators be held accountable for participating? For rejecting a protocol proposal that would introduce KYC or moderation?

Dad, geek, conversation liquidity provider. vrypan.net (home), /weatherxm (work), @l--o--l (fun). Also https://paragraph.xyz/@purplesubmarine

What if local laws are conflicting? Local for operator A says it’s illegal to do it, local law for operator B says it’s illegal not to do it? Example: report user IPs to Chinese authorities.

We are entering uncharted territory.

good question, i am not sure.

I guess operators would have to comply with their local law? ideally, they let people run unopinionated nodes