Freenet was designed and started by Ian Clarke who wanted to create a service where people could publish and share files without the fear of being censored or blocked. Users of Freenet contribute to the network by giving hard drive space where encrypted data can be stored. The encrypted data and the fact that the data is transferring through many peers make it nearly impossible to find out where the information originated. Essentially, Freenet was designed to allow for anonymous file sharing, chatting, browsing, and publishing of sites without the fear of censorship. These principles may open the door for some potential positive and negative consequences.Freedom of speech and press were the main goals:
One of the main principles of a service like Freenet is the protection of freedom of speech and freedom of press, allowing you to publish or share anything on the network. They accomplish this by allowing users to remain anonymous on the network, encrypting the files shared, and transmitting the information through many peers. As discussed above, users contribute some of their hard drive space for the storage of data on the network. The least popular information is discarded to make room for new, more popular information; this seems like its own data "policing" mechanism. An obvious consequence to this anonymity is when potential threats are made and the author cannot be located. With stories like Edward Snowden in the news recently, Freenet seems to be a way for users to share and publish information without the threat of government intervention or tracking.
Anonymity could be dangerous for society:
Completely anonymous sharing of information allows everyone to almost "hide behind the computer screen" with everything that they choose to post. This information they hide behind may be some type of illegal activity that would put a normal person at risk for some serious repercussions. In a recent interview, Clarke was asked about the potential for illegal acts like the sharing of child pornography over the network. Clarke responded by saying that it was unfortunate that this information could be shared, but he would not police it considering it goes against Freenet's principles. Just recently, the government shut down the Silk Road, an online drug trafficking marketplace. Users could browse it anonymously and securely, just like with Freenet. Despite the Silk Road solely being for drug trafficking, it gives light to the circumstance that Freenet could potentially do some similar type of activities and if it could be taken down as well.
File sharing hurts industry, but could generate publicity for artists:In the 2000s, music sales have decreased drastically due to file sharing. People are no longer buying CDs due to the ease of being able to download them from P2P networks, such as Freenet. People are always find ways to get around the system and illegally downloading copyrighted content through P2P networks is one of them. According to a Forrester Research, "just 44% of U.S. Internet users and 64% of Americans who buy digital music think that that music is worth paying for." Once people can figure out a way to get something for free, it's hard to go back to the way it was before. On the flip side, there are those who believe that file sharing is good for general publicity despite the fact the public isn't paying for their material. Metallica, for example, was a band that made a vast majority of its money from touring; over $20 million versus about $1.5 million from album sales. I feel that the argument can go both ways. Of course musicians/artists are losing out on revenue due to file sharing, but maybe the ultimate goal of a musician is to generate publicity to buy concert tickets and merchandise where they can make the most money.
There are many political, economic, and social effects with any P2P network. However, the fact that Freenet is based on anonymity changes the situation slightly. There are potential advantages of that as well as some drawbacks. Freenet mainly provides an outlet for those to publish and share anything they want with almost no consequences. Ian Clarke's goal was to provide individuals with this outlet so they could have freedom of speech and press and I believe he did so effectively, despite there being both positives and negatives to the system.
