Agreed, there are probably some stability concerns. But I expect the largest aspect is just energy usage. Brains use a lot of energy and until recently it was the primary limiting factor.
Otherwise we would also all have more muscle mass. There doesn't seem to be much downside to that.
Humans have (IIRC nearly unique) ability to have adaptive muscle mass. Gorillas get huge muscles without needing to exercise and by only eating vegetables, but we grow and shrink with our diets.
This is helpful because it means we can survive with unpredictable diets. But there might be other benefits like heart health or avoiding cancer.
Another big issue with huge brains is that your babies take longer to develop and are very hard to give birth to.
And your babies have to be born exceptionally helpless and vulnerable, often taking a year or more just to walk, whereas many animals begin walking in a matter of minutes or hours.
A significant portion of their development has to be moved outside the safety of the womb or their heads would get them stuck!
> or to be tantamount to training on IQ tests themselves which destroys their meaning (like memorizing vocabulary)
I have trouble understanding how people can make this point and still be big believers in (utility of?) IQs. If training for IQ tests destroys their validity they never had much in the first place.
No, other people are unilaterally making up rules and applying them to me. I would happily live in a society without IP, but am not permitted to do so. Those who support IP demand it globally, at the barrel of a gun.
More than 25,000 YouTubers now publish to the LBRY protocol, with more coming over every day, for reasons just like this. The total reach of these creators is more than 400,000,000 people.
We're just rolling out our mainstream video product explicitly designed to compete with YouTube @ https://odysee.com
To learn more about the protocol itself, check out https://lbry.tech
I vaguely remember this kind of tech being discussed a few years ago. It seemed legit at the time, though I have no idea if this particular implementation is.
Many people didn't want to send email in the 1990s either.
A blockchain is the only technology that allows a simultaneously decentralized and coherent view of what exists on a network along with local control over identity.
I think blockchain sucks in many ways and is a big hassle. We try to hide it as much as possible. It's still the right solution to this problem.
Interesting concept. I've been hoping and wishing for something, anything, to come along and replace Youtube with a freedom-of-speech oriented platform.
But in the FAQ there's this: "LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV allows content to be flagged as inappropriate. Should any content be flagged as illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive or various other reasons, LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV shall remove it from the site without delay."
So how do you actually remove stuff if it's so well distributed, encrypted packets, no central authority, no censorship? Seems contradictory.
Or maybe I'm just not understanding how it works and LBRY.TV only represents one implementation of a broader standard that is platformless?
It can be hidden from our official apps (but turned off by commenting out a single line in the UI code[0]). That content is still accessible via the LBRY sdk[1], and it is not possible for the company to remove it from the network.
It would be blocked by all LBRY INC apps. Someone would have to build an app to view it either in a country where it is not illegal, or they'd be breaking the law.
LBRY is the best YouTube alternative because it is the only one that fundamentally changes social video in a way that YouTube cannot copy.
LBRY uses a public blockchain to allow creators to retain complete control over their publishing identity. It also has a beautiful consumer app experience at https://lbry.tv, which was used by about 4M people last month (P2P apps at lbry.com/get).
A blockchain retains a complete, coherent, censorship-resistant listing of what's available on a network in a way that local or federated key-pairs can not.
There is no search all of PeerTube. There is search all of LBRY.
But what's available on the network isn't permanent.
How do you handle when a video stops getting hosted? Does it just keep showing up in search results, and then give an error whenever anyone tries to view it?
And if that's not the case -- if an unhosted, missing video can be removed from the blockchain by adding a revoke transaction or something, then how is it censorship resistant? If entries can be removed from search results when they go missing, haven't you just created a shared database where objectionable content can be removed from search for everyone at once?
That seems strictly worse than Peertube. At least on Peertube if you want to remove a video you'll need to target all of the instances that are mirroring it; you can't just attack one ledger that everyone is forced to use.
You can have a searchable index of content without blockchain. The web has searchable content indexes without blockchains for almost my entire lifetime. What does a blockchain actually solve here? Without a blockchain, at a bare minimum, all you would need is for creators to post signed content to an index, and anyone can verify the content with the creator's public key. Whether a piece of published content has a hash that precedes the previous one seems irrelevant.
Immutability. Once a link gets on the blockchain you can depend on it not changing. The content it points to can go away, but with an immutable index, that is discoverable. Censorship and link rot are more evident.
So if someone uploads a 2 hour version of a rickroll and tags it with the name of the latest blockbuster movie and then takes it offline, there is now going to be a permanent record that at some time there was a copy of this movie uploaded? When in fact that never happened?
How is this in any way better, or even something beneficial?
The latter is the key point. Considering all the controversy there is on Youtube about individual videos getting demonetized, I don't see why creators would move to platform that doesn't even pay to start with, or even worse you have to pay to use (Vimeo).
Those platform definitely have a purpose, but replacing Youtube is not one of them. They're fine for putting fun video to share with friends and family, but if you want to be a content creator and make a living from it, there isn't an alternative. If you already have a huge following and make most of your money from Patreon, maybe you can move, although you'd lose a lot of viewers.
I also don't get why LBRY is so underrated on hacker news. It is the best content platform especially in terms of free speech and monetization. Every update very few weeks makes the platform even better and more convenient.
Nice - if people steal videos how is that handled on the platform? Similarly for copyright infringement such as uploading full length commercial movies. Porn?
This man is claiming that staying at home increases deaths... He's also claiming a vaccine could be years away.
I also see zero evidence as to why he should be considered a credible source for effective covid treatments. The man is an economist at a university. Am I looking at the wrong Robin Hanson?
The key argument is that there is lots of uncertainty, but variolation is probably worth trying. And if volunteers can be found, why not? One shouldn't need to be a virologist to credibly make that argument.
Well, for one, orthopoxviruses cause skin lesions, replicate in keratinocytes, dermal fibroblasts and other skin cells and evoke strong immune responses there. Coronaviruses don't.
I'm not a medicine professional, so I'm just curious here.
Since variolation has basically the same principle as vaccination, it's hardly an alternative to vaccination. Is it really worth trying?
To me (with my very crude understanding), proposing variolation as an alternative to vaccination is akin to proposing knife without a handle as an alternative to a regular knife.
Is there any case where vaccination fails to work, while variolation succeed?
>is it suggested to just deploy [variolation] without testing?
Yes: the blog post by economist Robin Hanson suggested deploying it without waiting for the results of testing. (Of course, it would be good to test as fast and as much as possible concurrent with the deployment.)
"deploying it": making available to the public a variolation service or procedure designed by medical experts.
If we're lowering the standard, why only lower it for inoculation? We can just start deploying the dozen+ vaccines we have in development too if we decide testing isn't important.
I'm pretty sure Robin Hanson would want challenge trials with experimental vaccines as well. The issue is that authorities won't allow such trials, not that there is a lack of willing medical experts or volunteers.
Though vaccine trials aren't quite as safe for the public as variolation. If a vaccine doesn't work, the person can spread the disease. If variolation doesn't work, then it has the same mortality as natural infection, but afterwards the person is immune and can't spread the disease.
The reason a vaccine is months or years away is only because we are testing whether it is safe enough to give to billions of people.
The reason we do that is because a virus can cause disease both directly but also in unexpected ways (e.g. by immune over-reaction to some of the viral RNA in some individuals).
Variolation as a public policy would have to go through the same safety testing for the same reasons (as it is a form of vaccination with un-weakened virus).
You would also still have to produce doses of the variolate, both in terms of replicating the virus and bottling it.
There is no real time advantage to variolation. Anybody making the case for variolation without validation would be better off making the case for vaccination with one or several of the 30 vaccine candidates under study for SARS-Cov-2 right now (a case could be made... allow volunteers to be given the candidate vaccine of their choice in larger numbers than normal clinical trials, scaling up as the risk profile of each candidate vaccine is known).
I am not an expert (but neither are you, I am guessing).
>Anybody making the case for variolation without validation would be better off making the case for vaccination with one or several of the 30 vaccine candidates under study for SARS-Cov-2 right now
The advantage variolation has over the 30 vaccine candidates, I am guessing if the question is what to do before the results of testing are available is that most of those 30 candidates will turn out after being tested to fail to confer significant immunity.
I believe that the fate of most vaccine candidates for any disease is that testing reveals that the candidate fails to confer immunity to most or all of the people it is given to. Also I believe that it usually takes at least a year to produce enough of a vaccine to test, then test, then analyze the results of the testing.
Tested for safety? We know what it does. It gives a low dose of the virus. If we know most people will get it anyway, then we don't need to know more than that in terms of either safety or efficacy.
A low dose could trigger an incomplete immune response leading to antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) on exposure to the virus in the future. Other Coronavirus are known to have that characteristic, we dont know if this strain does. Safety is making sure that we aren't priming people to get worse versions of the disease like what unfortunately happened with dengue.
Of the 79 infected, 19 died. E block (where the index patient was), had 53 infections and 15 deaths for a mortality rate of 28%. Other units had 26 infections and 4 deaths, for a mortality rate of 15%. The death rate of patients in E7 (closest to the index patient and with the highest viral load) was 70%. That's more than 4x difference in mortality based on viral load!
It would be very surprising if low doses of SARS-CoV-2 caused higher mortality. Therefore should allow researchers and volunteers to experiment with low dose deliberate infection. It could save hundreds of thousands of lives.
There are 30 candidate vaccines (probably a lot more by now). 32 if you include the two that are non-weakened forms of virus that are being proposed for variolation.
Having "candidate vaccines" is very different from having a "vaccine". Variolation is a reasonable alternative to the lack of a known, effective vaccine.
Variolation as a term only applies to smallpox. Giving small doses of the live virus as hanson suggests is literally just a lame vaccine. It's also not known to be safe or effective and would have to go through all the trials anyway.
You have to test variolation too. There are dozens of vaccine candidates, if we are willing to ignore safety and efficacy testing we can start vaccinating people today.
Not entirely accurate. We know variolation will provide immunity. The main risk is to the volunteer, not to others. A vaccine might not provide immunity. That would make the patient a vector for the disease and endanger others.
> Do we really? I don't keep up with the news, did we already dismiss those reports about re-infection? Does it last long enough to be globally useful?
It seems to be extremely rare, and it's hard to know how many of those cases are due to incorrect initial diagnosis or people with odd immune systems. Immunity seems to be much greater than that conveyed by vaccines (which protect 85-95% of recipients).
> The main risk, sure, but the volunteer will become infectious. Vaccines constrain the risk to volunteers a lot better.
In vaccine challenge trials, people are exposed to the virus and kept quarantined until after the incubation period. Those who aren't protected by the vaccine must remain quarantined until their immune system defeats the disease. It would be the same for deliberate infection. Volunteers wouldn't be allowed to leave until the virus is no longer detectable. Hanson makes this clear in his blog post (linked to at the top of this thread).
That said, most vaccine trials are not challenge trials. Researchers give patients the vaccine and wait a while to see how many of them naturally contract the disease. During that time, the patients may or may not have immunity and can potentially infect others.
Just to clarify further - the man cites nothing but his own blog articles but makes sweeping statements as though they are fact. This is speculation on medical approaches for an understudied virus by a man totally unqualified who feels it unnecessary to inform his audience as such.
He's an economist, sure, and is proposing an idea that others can consider and, perhaps, study. I am not looking to this blog post as a source of treatment ideas but instead as a source of ideas.
I've been reading about the importance of the viral load in survival against this disease. His proposed variolation approach is one I've personally considered. Much like families of old had chicken pox parties for their kids, the idea of just getting this over with as safely as possible has some appeal.
Yet it is an approach out of favor for good reason. For most diseases the risk can be significant and historically we've been able to improve survival via quarantine and treatment. This disease is apparently harder to quarantine due to a long latency period and asymptomatic cases. And we have no effective treatment for the worst cases.
It is interesting however to consider that for patients inoculated with preliminary vaccine, it is considered unethical to give a "challenge dose" of virus, while this guy proposes doing so for those with no protection whatsoever. I can't get past that, and am too risk averse to try his idea even in a carefully controlled setting. I'll keep wearing my mask, washing hands and wait it out for now.
There is hope that we will discover a variant of this disease which is less dangerous. In that case I think the approach he recommends is more reasonable.
As you said, Pox parties and all weren't exactly a brilliant solution - now your kid would be carrying the chickenpox virus amd have a risk of shingles later, and using things like saliva from lollipops means that your kids are also now at risk if getting all sorts of fun diseases like hepatitis. There's a reason we use vaccines. We dont know the long term risks of covid (case in point, recently it's become clear that it can trigger blood clots and strokes in otherwise low risk individuals, and the inflammatory syndrome in children is highly concerning). That's why we dont do challenge doses.
There are companies deliberately breeding strains that are less dangerous (attenuated strains) for use as a vaccine, so people are working on that actively. It's not one of the approaches further along in trials though.
Ah, RationalWiki. At least it makes Wikipedia look consistently fair and unbiased, I suppose. (Two thirds of that page read to me like "and this is why Hanson should be unpersoned")
Imagine an article on Obama's presidency that devoted a paragraph to his accomplishments, and then several pages to drone strikes on US citizens, use of torture, selling guns to Mexican drug lords, and keeping kids in cages. None of it's wrong, but it's really not a fair assessment.
He is not a credible source on this, or pretty much anything else. He has some utterly reprehensible views, and is part of a very questionable cult of self-important people.
Meh. I have never heard of him before, but he has a clearly expressed idea which isn't completely unreasonable. I evaluated the idea on its own merits, and that's where I found it lacking. The man matters nothing to me, only his idea.
I submit that this is the only reasonable way of evaluating ideas. We can't all be perfect for all time in history.
Edit. Having now read your link, I am less interested in following his blog, but my analysis of his proposal is unchanged knowing more about him.
One thing to point out is that, as the wikipedia article makes clear, variolation refers explicitly to inoculation with smallpox. What he is proposing is literally just a really mediocre vaccine. Instead of killing or weakening the virus, or expressing subunits to build immunity against, hes suggesting just vaccinating with the normal live virus. And by exposing to a very low dose, it might not even be enough to trigger a strong enough immune response to generate long term memory against the virus, since we're already seeing people with little or no antibody response after getting sick. So of course wed need a rigorous, well run trial to evaluate this, at which point what's the advantage compared to a well made vaccine again? You don't get to have lower standards for your vaccination approach because you call it something else incorrectly.
When he shows any semblance of Skin in the Game and gets inoculated with the virus, then I will think about listening to him.
There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs
This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
The risks you mentioned are in no way a direct consequence of the actions people take. No one goes to work in medicine with the purpose of getting infected.
Do not think this rhetorical BS trap is believable for a second. This is the kind of crappy thinking and morality that economists and Robin Hanson proponents defend and pat themselves in the back for sounding oh-so-smart.
Regardless of whether death is a direct consequence or an outside risk from the action you’re still just as dead. It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.
> It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.
Right. To which I say that anyone that only looks at things from the economic perspective is an immoral hack that should never be listened to.
Every larger issue, dear to either conservatives or progressives alike, can find its roots in and be justified by some moron looking for solutions exclusively via an economic perspective. It's a danger to society, plain and simple.
It's a global pandemic. We all have skin in the game whether we want to or not. Unless you're suggesting that before writing a blog post, he should do some amateur virology and variolate himself, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to say Robin Hanson would see this implemented and then not be among the first volunteers, I think you don't know Robin Hanson.
I'm guessing he isn't doing it himself because he's 61 years old. His odds of dying are maybe 10-100x higher than the perfectly healthy twentysomethings that he's proposing for an initial trial.
Well, he is the one that is arguing that there is some linearity between cost-benefit of such a research. So following his own reasoning, as long as he gets 10x-100x bigger payment compared to a twentysomething, all is good and clean.
There are moral considerations to be done before proposing something ridiculous like what he is doing, and yet he is trying to reduce all ethical considerations into a "simple" matter of economics. Life can not be reduced to spherical cows and trolley problems.
I mean "Skin in the Game" in the Talebian sense, so yes, I am saying that he may write anything he wants, but I will only give any credit to his ideas if he actually follows through himself, or at the very very least if he accepts responsibility for any damage that he's done and is penalized accordingly.
Losing money in a prediction market does not count as a proportional penalty for the damage that he might be causing to others.
I know very well what you meant, and yet I still struggle to see what you're actually suggesting that he should have done, besides what he did, which was write a blog post about an interesting idea.
Can you actually make a concrete suggestion or are you just blathering because you don't like the guy? The only concrete thing I can see in your comment is that you won't "give any credit to his ideas" unless he, presumably, tries it himself first (how?).
And what exactly is this terrible damage that he might be causing to others by raising awareness of this idea? Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?
He would be showing a modicum of Skin in the Game if he actually went to infect himself and those close to him with the virus before encouraging others to normalize such a risky experiment.
> Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?
He is not just "raising awareness" of the idea of variolation. His writing was already trying to argue that government could try a program where volunteers would get paid to be infected.
When asked "if you think this is a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" he responded with something along the lines of "there is no counterparty to bet with me on it, so what is the point?" Isn't that the answer of someone completely oblivious to the idea of SITG?
He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation, and you think he just ought to go off and infect himself in uncontrolled conditions without any medical training or control group? One of the two of you hasn't thought this through, and I'm pretty sure it's you.
How to infect himself? A short walk in a busy hospital would take care of that quickly... but that really doesn't matter for the argument.
> He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation (...) he just ought to go off and infect himself
Yes, that is the point! He is suggesting something that medical experts already consider dangerous and unethical, otherwise it would already be done. He wants medical experts give some veneer of science to something completely immoral just by seeking higher financial compensation to those that might be affected.
So what he is "proposing" involving everyone else taking a lot more risk, without any real consequence for him. This is no display of SITG, quite the opposite. He just sees it as a game of "Heads some might lose their life, but tails we might win a little, so let's find the price point where this is even".
By asking if he is willing to infect himself to do it, it is not a matter of doing it for the science or the economics of betting. It is just a pure ethical filter: "So far your words only risk the lives of others, but if you really think this is the best course of action then you need to demonstrate you are willing to put your ass on the line. Can you?"
You demonstrate utter failure to understand the idea. A controlled, known, small viral load is the idea. Controlled: not from a random walk through a hospital, but administered under controlled conditions. Known: a measured quantity, not an unknown quantity from a random walk through a hospital, of a known viral strain. Small: maybe 1/50th the kind of load you would get if you were exposed in a busy hospital and someone sneezed on you.
You so spectacularly missed all these points that it's clearly not worth continuing this conversation further.
You are focusing on the practicality of the whole argument while I am trying to show that the practicality of it is irrelevant if the whole idea is immoral and starts from wrong principles.
Let me try again: there is a reason that no one is doing "small, controlled, small virus load experiments": it is because they are illegal, unethical and potentially bring more harm than benefit. If they are supposed to be done properly, they should be done with the same standards that are adopted for those that want to develop vaccines and other medicines.
What Hanson is proposing requires doctors and scientists to drop already established ethical principles and adopt practices that have unknown risks and can be potentially catastrophic.
He puts it as the whole "we already test vaccines on humans, and vaccines are made from the virus itself, so why not just test the actual virus" was just an issue of testing on dosage/response. He wants to argue that the risk people take is just proportional to the amount of contact they have to the virus.
It is not. Just as an example: suppose that inoculation by a weak version of the virus does not help our immune system to create antibodies and just instead make us more susceptible to a future, more lethal mutation of another Coronavirus? This is a very-tiny-but-plausible possibility, and that alone should stop us from abandoning current safe practices for research.
He wants you and I and other doctors to just squint our eyes and pretend it is okay to do what he is proposing if the participants take a little bit more risk (compared to drug trials conducted ethically) and that just by compensating them properly, it would be fair and ethical.
It is not. Trials for drugs and vaccines go through a bunch of other steps before to try to determine its safety on humans. He sidesteps the whole thing and wants medical practices to go back centuries in time for no good reason other than "economic theory"
---
So, we have this guy who is trying to convince others to take risks of unknown magnitude and to break traditional practices with unknown benefit. We have this guy who is willing to play fast and loose with the rules without ever facing any consequence of the potential downside of these measures.
What do you do with it? What I am saying is that anything he is defending should not have any weight until he shows willingness to face the consequences of his risky proposal. And given that we do not know the behavior of the virus and we do not know what are the "safe" parameters for it, the only way that he can show SITG is by facing the highest possible risk.
This is why I say I don't particularly care about the practicality of it all. There is no way to quantify the risk anyone is being exposed to it, so whoever is asking others to take the risks should give the example by taking the maximum risk possible. And it is not that he is making himself "more right" or "less wrong" (pun intended) if he does show SITG. It is just that I am just allowing myself to take any risky proposal into consideration when those doing the proposal are also facing the risks. It is a simple filter.
I hope at least now I could make myself clearer. Thanks for the discussion anyway.
> the practicality of it is irrelevant if the whole idea is immoral
Agreed.
I didn't read his post as saying that the payment had anything to do with the ethics of it, and we routinely pay participants in clinical trials for their time. I don't see the idea as something that's impossible to do ethically, and you do, but apart from that we are in agreement. Thanks to you too.
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
Hard disagree based on experience. The clinical testing of many drug classes are entirely dependent on many people being too uneducated or desperate to consider those types of risks.
The fact that something is possible or economically advantageous does not make it moral.
In the crazy scenario that I had to participate in drug trials, I would instate a pretty simple rule: I would only accept those substances if everyone involved in the drug creation and test taking had themselves participated in the trial.
> "In the crazy scenario that I had to participate in drug trials, I would instate a pretty simple rule: I would only accept those substances if everyone involved in the drug creation and test taking had themselves participated in the trial."
That's a simple rule, but it's ridiculous. The costs and benefits of taking a new drug are heterogeneous. Do you think people who develop anti-psychotics should be required to take anti-psychotic medications they have no need for?
No. I do not think that. It does not make my statement invalid. Does it?
(Come to think of it, it is interesting to see how the US is so addicted to pills and the opiate epidemic. The doctors are free to prescribe willingly, receive incentives from pharma companies and there is almost zero downside paid by them for those that get addicted. Don't you think this would be a much smaller problem if there was a way to get Skin in the Game from the doctors and companies and make them pay for cases of opiate abuse?)
Anyway, I was thinking of drugs that may affect anyone, like treatments for common diseases. For those, the idea is that I would like to have some sense of symmetry in the risk taking for all parties.
As perhaps a better way illustrate what I mean: whenever I had to take my kids to the pediatrician, I would listen to the doctor's recommendations and would ask "If it was your kid, would you still do the same you are telling me?"
Here in Germany the practices are way more conservative and less pill-happy in the US, so I can't recall any time where the doctor would propose something that was not willing to apply to one of her own. In Brazil, however, I do remember in 2017 during an outbreak of Yellow Fever when I everyone was rushing to the hospitals to get a vaccine. I talked to a nurse who basically said "If it was my kid, I wouldn't give it. The side-effects are too strong and it is only sensible if you live really close to the Forest." The doctor later confirmed, and we walked out.
2. Twitter chose a prediction rather than a factual statement to fact check ("Mail-In Ballots will be..."). Why not start with a truly factually wrong statement about the past?
The notion that a company can ever be trusted to "fact check" (aka determine objective truth) is just completely laughable. The closest we can come is labeling agent beliefs about truth ("X says Y is false").
Doing nothing would be better than doing this. Even better would be building solutions that allow community-based (and ideally personalized) derivations of consensus (this is what we're doing at LBRY).
If you think the idea of trusting giant social media corporations with the levers to control our speech is outrageous, so does everyone working on LBRY.
We are working hard to design systems that have the same user experience as the traditional web, but fundamentally redesigned so that this kind of behavior is outright impossible. LBRY allows for local control of the publishing experience, and layers identity, discovery, and payments on top of a distributed data network.
Yes yes yes. I am saving this comment I can quote it again in the future.
The development of any number of now widely accepted truths went through periods where they were viewed incredibly skeptically.
It's inconceivable to me that anyone could even want to _have_ the argument of wanting a central censor again. Haven't we already had this battle enough times? Is the evidence not incontrovertible that societies where people are free to speak and exchange ideas are better than societies that are not?
It's rational, I think, to want our software to offer warnings and controls that let us, _as individuals_, choose to hide, filter, or shrink-wrap certain information. Completely surrendering that trust to someone else is utterly insane.
P.S. I'm the CEO of LBRY, and this stance is pretty core to what we do. Email me at jeremy@lbry.com if you want to say hi.
Logically, it's likely there must be trade-offs for higher IQs or it would have been selected for more strongly.