When the New York Times incepted, no New York buyer or reader would have had an issue with the fact any legal claim would need to be resolved in New York; it was normal to consume content and litigate in paper form, along the delays attendant with it. Today, you read many articles online, including the present article on Steemit, a “blockchain-based, public content platform”, which can distribute information in the world as being on the internet. (Steem Whitepaper.)
Yet, by accessing Steemit, you are agreeing to “arbitrate Disputes through binding arbitration” that are “to occur in New York County, New York” and this “confidentially by a single arbitrator in accordance with the rules of JAMS [a traditional arbitration provider]”. Steemit’s terms, as well as your use of Steemit, are “governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of New York”. (Terms of Service.)
Steemit acknowledges it has “no control over the Steem blockchain” because “proposed Steem blockchain transactions must be confirmed and recorded in the Steem blockchain via the Steem distributed consensus network (a peer-to-peer network), which is not owned, controlled, or operated by [Steemit].” (Id.)
Then it is questionable why someone anywhere in the world would need to go to New York to adjudicate a dispute regarding which there is little the parties are even actually able or bound to execute. Indeed, this kind of digital environment is able to be executed by private keys/passwords and is bound by code—not by words. Therefore, a dispute resolution mechanism that is similarly digital would be more efficient, as a built-in feature that can stand alone from offline arbitration.
That is what Kleros aims to accomplish: a “blockchain dispute resolution layer” to “adjudicate disputes in a fast, secure, and affordable manner” and “with jurors who have the skills to fairly settle them.” (See the Kleros website, at https://kleros.io.) The Kleros pilot is testing the curation of content: users must make a deposit to guarantee the content complies with the rules; if challenged by any other user, the content is going to decentralized arbitration. (Id.)
While this example of content curation is more of an internal process than an actual legal dispute, consider the following scenario: if a user were to post content that is harmful to another person, then that other person may be able to secure compensation through the deposit rather than make a legal claim against Steemit (for failure to moderate, if having such duty) or serve a subpoena on Steemit in order to discover any information it might have about the user.
In the end, whether for processes, actual legal disputes, or other controversies for which a jury would be desirable, then Kleros can be implemented. There are therefore many other ways in which it could be applicable for the Steemit ecosystem.
Please be welcomed to share what you think of the current dispute resolution system on Steemit and any ideas you might have to make it more decentralized. Also, as the title sought to know: New York or blockchain?
Written as part of the following contest:
https://steemit.com/crypto/@originalworks/940-steem-sponsored-writing-contest-kleros
Contest keyword:
kleros2018