So basically you're saying "do not circumvent censorship and tell the world about it or your domain might get censored too", right ?
How does that make any sense ? ipfs is still available to install from github, ditribution repository and other places. IIANM blocking the ipfs.io doesn't block the protocol.
Moreover the Streisand effect shows that attempt at online censorship has the opposite effect and actually draws more attention to it making your point dubious.
> So basically you're saying "do not circumvent censorship and tell the world about it or your domain might get censored too", right ?
No, that is not what was said.
What was said is, if you're going to claim to be able to circumvent censorship, actually be able to circumvent censorship first. There are connections (HTTPS to GitHub was a specific example that was given) which cannot be censored without significant collateral damage to the GDP of the country. IPFS is not yet one of them. IPFS should become one of them, and then make these sorts of claims.
These things are usually an ongoing race between the government and the people fighting censorship. The first move here was Turkey blocking Wikipedia, next is Wikipedia on IPFS, then maybe later Turkey blocks IPFS, then IPFS gets on tor, which I understand is already coming pretty soon, and so on.
Yeah, the Steisand effect is important. If Turkey blocked ipfs, it would get publicity on places like the NY Times and all sorts of people who had never heard of ipfs would learn about it, and many would get intrigued and look into it.
How does that make any sense ? ipfs is still available to install from github, ditribution repository and other places. IIANM blocking the ipfs.io doesn't block the protocol.
Moreover the Streisand effect shows that attempt at online censorship has the opposite effect and actually draws more attention to it making your point dubious.