Quote from: NotATether on Today at 11:22:46 AM

Here is a more practical and dangerous example: Imagine you are buying subscriptions for a site, but you can't because the big motion picture association trolls sent a DMCA notice to the site because it happens to have an illegible sequence of bytes that are related to DVDs?

And then, here too, Wasabi decides to "voluntarily" censor those transactions that are violating copyright i.e. DMCA.

Let me tell you something even worse. Once you start censoring, you will inevitably progressively censor things you were not supposed to censor in the first place. This is a precedent. Once you said yes to coin 'filtering' for three reasons that were deemed suspect or 'illicit', it gets SO much harder to say no to 'just one more' reason to censor for.

I can easily imagine someone fighting against censorship straight from the start and successfully saying 'no' to censorship but I can hardly imagine someone pretending to fight against censorship in the beginning, jumping in the surveillance boat, willing to censor 'just a few very bad things' and then successfully saying 'no' to one more 'bad thing' to censor.

At this point. Once the 'filtering' starts it is just so easy to be a targeted attack. Think exchanges asking you for KYC due to 'suspected origin of coins'. They never share proof of origin of suspicion, do they? They share no proof but they ask you for a lot of it. Wasabi can ban you and you will never even know why you were 'filtered' in the first place. All of it just because some big boy told them you are bad.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG