►
From YouTube: The Centre Should Not Hold: How a Decentralized Storage Economy can hold Big Tech in Check
Description
The Centre Should Not Hold: How a Decentralized Storage Economy can hold Big Tech in Check with Danny O’Brien (EFF)
A
It's
really
truly
an
honor
to
be
able
to
introduce
danny
I'm
a
huge
fan
of
his
work.
For
over
the
years,
I've
read
a
lot
of
the
pieces
and
and
perspectives
and
and
help
that
vanity
has
has
put
out
and-
and
I've
been,
the
obsessed
question
itself
is
super
lucky
to
to
have
been
able
to
chat
with
danny
about
our
content
policies
and
our
how
the
strategy
around
how
do
we
make
sure
that
the
network
is
used
for
good?
A
How
do
we
make
sure,
at
the
same
time,
that
the
network
remains
open
and
preserves
rights
and
pushes
our
digital
freedoms
and
how
do
we
kind
of
make
sure
to
kind
of
prevent
problems
but
at
the
same
time
really
make
sure
that
rights
are
protected?
So
really,
thank
you
so
much
to
danny
for
for
joining
us
and
yeah
I'll.
Let
you
take
it
away.
B
So
you
can
see
what's
happening,
you
can
meet
the
people
who
are
doing
the
work
and
the
other
important
thing
is
to
fail
to
make
any
money
out
of
that.
This
is
what,
in
journalism
we
describe
as
ethics
and
I'm
happy
to
say
that
you
know
I've
been
lucky
enough
to
do
both
of
those
things
over
that
20
years
in
in
journalism,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
you
sort
of
note
as
you
go
through
each
of
these
different
transitions.
B
For
instance,
I
I
used
to
hang
around
before
even
use
net
bulletin
boards
with
some
of
the
people
that
went
in
britain,
at
least
to
start
the
micro
computer
revolution.
Then
I
moved
in
2000
to
silicon
valley,
just
when
the
dot-com
boom
was
was
collapsing,
but
the
seeds
of
the
the
web
2.0
revolution
were
beginning
there.
I
would
sit
in
a
basement
with
bram
cohen,
as
he
hacked
on
bittorrent,
and
I
got
to
hang
out
at
the.
B
I
guess
the
last
really
cypherpunk
meetings
where,
of
course,
a
lot
of
the
principles
of
the
blockchain
environment
and
many
of
the
things
that
we're
seeing
20
years
later
were
first
devised
or
or
projected
and
in
all
of
those
situations.
I
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
you
always
saw
was
in
retrospect.
They
seem
over
determined.
They
seem
almost
inevitable.
B
B
I
think
one
of
the
the
biggest
most
convincing
documents
that
led
to
certainly,
I
think,
led
to
netscape
open
sourcing
the
what
became
firefox,
the
mozilla
browser
was
the
er
raymond's
article
and
and
the
the
cathedral
and
the
bazaar
and
one
of
the
things
looking
back
and
reading.
That
is
that
it's
actually
a
very
con.
It's
a
document,
that's
struggling
to
understand
how
you
might
build
something
like
linux
in
a
decentralized
way,
given
that
that
seemed
counter-intuitive
and
and
near
impossible.
B
B
We
all
assumed
it
would
be
an
x
500
system
and
that
packet,
switching
and
decentralized
distribution
of
of
roots
was
seen
as
a
fringe
thing
that
we
didn't
think
would
work
even
amongst
the
people
who
were
sort
of
experimentally
plotting
this
out
until
it
was
built,
and,
finally,
I
think,
maybe
a
bit
more
in
recent
memory.
I
remember
talking
to
some
of
the
people
who
were
the
pioneers
of
all
of
these
decentralizing
revolutions
when
wikipedia
first
emerged
and
the
general
consensus
was
that
wikipedia
was
doomed.
B
B
But
when
you
talk
to
them,
often
their
solutions
don't
take
into
account
that
there's
even
a
future
that
exists
without
these
tech
giants.
When
you
speak
to
lawmakers,
I
was
in
europe
recently,
not
so
recently
because
of
covert,
but
a
a
year
or
so
ago,
talking
about
the
copyright
directive,
which
was
a
proposal
that
actually
got
through,
which
was
pretty
designed
to
be
a
slap
on
the
hands
to
the
big
u.s
tech
companies
to
the
amazons
and
the
googles
and
the
facebooks
of
the
world,
and
I
I
was
saying
to
them.
B
So
I
think
we're
at
that
fascinating
point
right
now.
Where
not
only
do
we
face
a
terrible,
disturbing
unwinding
of
all
of
those
revolutions
that
existed
before
as
tech
centralizes
and
creates
a
control
system
over
our
existing
network,
but
also
the
people's
imaginations
are
contracting
and
it
that
could
have
serious
consequences,
and
I
think
the
thing
it
most
reminds
me
of
in
history
is
that
you
know
2.
000
years
ago
we
had
an
incredible
flowering
of
democracy,
at
least
in
in
the
europe
and
and
the
middle
east.
B
B
Not
only
did
people
begin
to
sort
of
forget
those
structures,
as
they
were
replaced
by
emperors
and
kings,
but
they
began
to
forget
that
this
was
even
possible
and
it
took
a
renaissance.
It
took
a
revitalization
to
create
proofs
of
existence
that
that
democracy
was
possible
again,
and
so
it
it's
so
vital
to
have
a
system
in
place
like
filecoin,
like
ipfs.
B
B
A
A
Look
what
you're
describing
is
deeply
deeply
important,
and
especially
the
notion
of
actually
reaching
out
to
regulators
and
legislators
around
the
world
to
help
help
people
understand
what's
at
stake
and
what
what
the
potential
directions
are,
and
you
know
how
to
everyone
wants
good
futures.
It's
just
you
know
we
end
up
in
bad
futures
because
we
fail
to
see
how
to
get
there.
We
fail
to
communicate
about
them.
You
know
how?
A
A
B
You
know
the
when
people
be
formed.
Unions,
part
of
the
reason
was,
is
so
that
you
have
like
you
know
the
head
of
a
union
that
can
go
and
speak
to
someone
in
power,
and
it's
I'm
not
saying
that
we
should
form
a
union
necessarily,
but
you
have
to
think
of
some
way
of
becoming
visible
that
you
can
now
that
can
be
as
simple
as
just
going
and
visiting
lawmakers.
We're
talking
right
now
at
eff.
B
But
a
lot
of
the
thinking
and
work,
including
for
ipfs
and
and
far
coin,
is
taking
place
outside
of
the
united
states
in
europe
and,
of
course,
in
china.
So
bringing
in
those
voices
really
brings
out
how
distinctive
that
is,
and
the
other
thing
is
like
forming
ally,
allegiances
and
allies
with
other
people
working
in
this
area.
So
I
think
sometimes
we
think
of
this
space
as
being
very
competitive.
B
There
are
lots
of
alternative
protocols,
everyone's
jockeying
for
position,
but
when
you're
trying
to
talk
to
the
rest
of
the
world
about
what
you're
doing,
there's
such
a
there's
such
a
strength
in
in
unity
and
talking
together
and
saying,
look,
we
don't
know
which
one
of
us
will
be
the
the
future.
But
it
doesn't
matter.
We
all
need
these
basic
understandings
in
the
people
who
run
our
governments.
A
Yeah
one
of
the
things
that's
been
fueling
and
powering
a
lot
of
the
web
3
movement
and
the
kind
of
resurgence
of
you
know
call
for
decentralized
centralizing.
The
web
there's
been
a
set
of
principles
around
various
kind
of
basic
freedoms
that
are
almost
human
right
or
are
straight
up
human
rights
in
in
the
in
the
offline
world
in
the
mid
space,
but
are
not
necessarily
clear
digital
rights
in
in
the
internet.
A
So
we're
talking
about
things
like
freedom
of
speech
and
freedom
of
assembly
being
able
to
communicate
with
each
other
freely
freedom.
You
know
sovereignty
over
your
identity
and
your
data
data
property
rights,
so
things
around
your
own
personal
data
and
how
it's
used
and
what
you
should
you
know
about
it,
and,
and
also
the
monetization
flows
of
of
that
property
right
and
so
on.
So
I'm
curious
how
you
see
these
fights
evolving
over
time?
What's
the
what's
kind
of
what
are
the
hopes?
B
Yeah,
so
our
experience
at
the
electronic
frontier
foundation
we've
now
got
30
years
of
experience
of
this
is
definitely
you
know.
The
the
struggle
with
explaining
to
not
just
lawmakers,
but
also
to
to
to
judges
in
the
general
public
is
that
it's
partly
that
proof
of
existence
is
partly
that
we
saw
a
huge
change,
see
change
in
lawmakers
opinions
when
they
started
ripping
cds,
for
instance
right.
B
B
You
know
freedom
of
association,
freedom
of
being
able
to
have
some
degree
of
privacy
in
your
financial
transactions
right
and
not
have
them
go
through
central
choke
points
and,
of
course
the
analogy
here
is
always
money
cash
money.
But
another
thing:
that's
sort
of
important
is
to
point
out
to
people
that
that
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
a
democracy,
democratization
and
decentralization
of
finance
and
the
laws
that
you
might
apply
to
control
centralized
financial
systems
which
are
very
invasive
of
our
privacy.
B
I
think
really
helps
make
this
argument
they're
used
to
talking
to
the
mark,
zuckerbergs
and
the
and
the
sergey
brins
of
the
world,
and
they
know
where
they're
coming
from.
But
if
you
have
people
coming
up
and
saying
hey,
I
don't
have
any
of
that.
I'm
not
I'm
not
here,
because
I'm
a
billionaire
I'm
here,
because
I
want
to
be
able
to
exercise
my
rights.
I
it's
hard
to
believe,
but
actually
politicians
are
often
receptive
to
that
because
that's
why
they're
doing
their
job.
B
B
If,
as
we
understand
like
what's
happening
on
in
these
edge
cases,
we
can
set
the
precedence
in
the
courts
and
in
front
of
lawmakers
to
make
sure
that
the
the
we
can
anticipate
what
everybody
else
will
be
doing
in
five
to
ten
years
time
so
you're
kind
of
canary's
in
the
coal
mine
and
we're
we're.
We
like
looking
after
canaries.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
you
know
one
of
the
goals
of
the
community
is
also
to
try
and
help.
You
know
avoid
the
the
problems
that
are
rampant
now
and
again:
social
media
misinformation,
landscape,
like
in
the
last
talk,
we
were
delving
a
little
bit
into
that.
Some
of
us
are
pretty
worried
that
decentralizing
these
social
flows
might
make
a
bunch
of
the
problems
worse,
yeah.
B
A
Might
make
some
problems
better,
so
it's
harder
to
control
harder
to
censor
harder
to
harder
to
con
explicitly
target
particular
parties
harder
to
understand
all
the
data
points
about
people
and
so
on
so
hard
to
exploit,
but
at
the
same
time
harder
to
actually
understand.
What's
going
on
easier
for
bad
things
to
happen,
without
anybody
really
being
alerted
and
so
on.
B
They
should,
I
think,
there's
two
two
elements.
There's
one
is
that
you
know
it's
always
easier
to
centralize
right.
It's
always
easy
to
like
assume
a
beneficial
dictator,
and
then
the
problem
is
solved
right
and
you
you.
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
things
re-centralized
is
that
people
go.
You
know,
maybe
it's
better
if
we
just
let
mark
zuckerberg,
be
in
charge
of
these
things.
At
least
we
can
drag
him
to
a
subcommittee
if
it's
gone
wrong
and
then,
of
course
it
goes
wrong.
B
You
know
all
of
these
problems
are
problems
that
were
the
centralized
systems
were
supposed
to
be
fantastic
at
solving
right
moderation.
Real
names
were
supposed
to
be
this
brilliant
way
of
making
everybody
responsible
and
friendly
on
the
internet
and,
in
fact,
traded
the
opposite.
So
it's
important
to
realize
that
the
the
the
simple
solution
doesn't
always
solve
the
problem,
and
the
other
thing
is:
is
that
the
we
can't
predict?
B
I
can't
tell
you
the
solution
to
moderation
and
disinformation,
but
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
the
obvious
solutions
don't
work,
because
we've
obviously
tried
them
they're,
very
smart
people
in
all
of
these
places.
Working
on
this,
which
means
we
need
to
have
a
diversity
of
responses
right,
we
need
to
be
able
to
experiment
and
try
things
out
so
on.
B
You
know
you
and
I's
place
in
that
is
to
make
sure
that
that
diversity
can
exist
without
people
going
you
know,
reddit
should
be
should
be
banned
rather
than
reddit
should
learn
to
be
better
about
dealing
with
these.
These
situations,
and
the
second
one
is
is,
is
as
developers
and
creators
you
know
be
willing
to
try
something,
try
something
new
and
try
something
out
and
and
read
about
other
people's
mistakes
right.
B
There's
now,
30
years,
40
years,
50
years
of
reputation,
system,
thought
and
and
network
analysis,
there
are
some
brilliant,
brilliant
social
scientists
who
are
writing
really
really
good
stuff
they're,
not
the
people
who,
like
just
angrily,
rant
on
twitter,
they're
people
who
dana
boyd
at
the
data
and
society
institute,
is
fantastic
and
her.
Her
colleagues
are
brilliant
at
this
who
are
actually
trying
to
solve
the
problem,
and
you
can
scoop
that
out.
You
can
build
it
into
your
system
and
who's
amazed,
maybe
maybe
you'll
crack
it.