[zzalpha]

How so? If it's under individual control, you'll just end up with sub-networks where people will agree to distribute that type of content.

You cannot pair anonymity and security with censorship. They are fundamentally incompatible. So either accept that nasty content will be out there, or acknowledge that you don't actually want perfect anonymity and security.

[saurik]

FWIW, if you look at Tor, Facebook now runs a hidden service that allows people to access Facebook's website. This is essentially the same thing as someone having provided a number of exit nodes that will only route to Facebook. The problem, though, is that this requires the client and maybe even the website to be modified to use the .onion URLs for all accesses back to the site (at least, any absolute URL on the site back to the site will cause a problem). I will personally contend that it is worth it to allow Facebook to do this, or to allow anyone to do this for any website, in order to get more people using the network for everything, as the more users you can get using the service to do normal traffic the more easily you can hide everyone.

This is particularly noticeable given that in some countries, such as the United States where I live, simply accessing the Tor website to download Tor will end up flagging you for further monitoring. If Tor had only as many users and exit nodes as it does right now, but additionally had, for example, a billion people in China accessing Wikipedia through exit nodes that refused to go anywhere but Wikipedia, that makes a world of difference. As it stands, people are actually actively discouraged and even shamed for using Tor to access random websites or ones that use a lot of bandwidth, as that means that they are using (or even "abusing") a limited amount of donated bandwidth that somehow needs to be reserved for those who "really need it" (and thereby, will be targeted just for that).

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d73yd7/how-the-ns...