Yes, there are some efforts to build infra like this! I’m not sure any have launched yet.
Some people have been looking into blockchain as a decentralized way to store and add information. There are also some great FB groups, but they frequently get shut down by some people who report them to moderators.
I do think the Bay Area startup world should have its equivalent to CEA, but it would require time, dedication, smart incentive design, and funding. Right now, Silicon Valley seems too libertarian/internally competitive for this to happen by default.
Blockchain doesn’t seem like a good fit for this problem. I think it might scare people away, either from intimidation at using the technology or for the general negative associations of blockchain with bad actors in the crypto space. You have to have a place to view the information anyway, so it’s unclear as to what blockchain adds. Also, you don’t really want these accusations to be immutable, if someone maliciously uploads false accusations it’d be better to have some way to remove it.
Something like a discord server or even a google spreadsheet seems like it would work better and have easier access.
I think the idea is that, unlike FB groups, there isn’t a centralized authority who can shut a blockchain-based system down and such shutdowns apparently have been a problem in the past.
I agree that using a blockchain mechanism carries significant downsides, and am not endorsing that, but do think it plausible that decentralization adds some pluses.
True, but if that’s all you need, you can just make a regular website, or an encrypted group chat, etc. People facing potential retaliation are not going to share their experiences unless they trust the people running the network. You need centralised trust, which is the exact opposite of what blockchain was made for. The blockchain part would be either redundant or actively counterproductive.
This makes sense, and I’m generally agnostic. But the trade-off with a centralized authority is that the people running the system take on a lot of liability. The good samaritans who do this work currently are very careful, paranoid people. If one has incriminating information about powerful people, there is often a target on one’s back.
Yeah, I definitely appreciate the great risks that are being undertaken, and the need to protect yourself from retaliation by powerful abusers.
I don’t pretend to know the best answer, only that I strongly believe going the blockchain route would be a huge mistake. I don’t think blockchain solves the liability problem, merely shunting it onto the developers and maintainers of the blockchain product, or to individuals whose accusations get leaked. It seems that a better route would be something like Callisto, which anonymously matches victims together using encrypted accusations using a regular app. I’m no expert though, I just really hope that something can be done that meaningfully makes a dent in this problem.
Yes, there are some efforts to build infra like this! I’m not sure any have launched yet.
Some people have been looking into blockchain as a decentralized way to store and add information. There are also some great FB groups, but they frequently get shut down by some people who report them to moderators.
I do think the Bay Area startup world should have its equivalent to CEA, but it would require time, dedication, smart incentive design, and funding. Right now, Silicon Valley seems too libertarian/internally competitive for this to happen by default.
Blockchain doesn’t seem like a good fit for this problem. I think it might scare people away, either from intimidation at using the technology or for the general negative associations of blockchain with bad actors in the crypto space. You have to have a place to view the information anyway, so it’s unclear as to what blockchain adds. Also, you don’t really want these accusations to be immutable, if someone maliciously uploads false accusations it’d be better to have some way to remove it.
Something like a discord server or even a google spreadsheet seems like it would work better and have easier access.
I think the idea is that, unlike FB groups, there isn’t a centralized authority who can shut a blockchain-based system down and such shutdowns apparently have been a problem in the past.
I agree that using a blockchain mechanism carries significant downsides, and am not endorsing that, but do think it plausible that decentralization adds some pluses.
True, but if that’s all you need, you can just make a regular website, or an encrypted group chat, etc. People facing potential retaliation are not going to share their experiences unless they trust the people running the network. You need centralised trust, which is the exact opposite of what blockchain was made for. The blockchain part would be either redundant or actively counterproductive.
This makes sense, and I’m generally agnostic. But the trade-off with a centralized authority is that the people running the system take on a lot of liability. The good samaritans who do this work currently are very careful, paranoid people. If one has incriminating information about powerful people, there is often a target on one’s back.
Yeah, I definitely appreciate the great risks that are being undertaken, and the need to protect yourself from retaliation by powerful abusers.
I don’t pretend to know the best answer, only that I strongly believe going the blockchain route would be a huge mistake. I don’t think blockchain solves the liability problem, merely shunting it onto the developers and maintainers of the blockchain product, or to individuals whose accusations get leaked. It seems that a better route would be something like Callisto, which anonymously matches victims together using encrypted accusations using a regular app. I’m no expert though, I just really hope that something can be done that meaningfully makes a dent in this problem.