What I meant,  if you are holding and sharing an entire file of some really sensitive content and depend on networking technologies known or assumed to have flaws which can expose your IP address you have relinquished ability to deny it. 
Whereas is this content has been published, using something like Freenet, so no single user of the content distribution system has more than a fragment of that content and what they each have is not only encrypted (and you don't have the key) but its bit interleaved and your software has no idea what part(s) of the content you hold nor where those other parts reside (for that your software must possess the file's "treasure map" which can be closely held). This offers good plausible deniability.

Warrant Canary creator

On May 21, 2017 2:24 PM, "grarpamp" <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mojo was being developed contemporanously with Freenet and shares some of
> its distributed features. It was sort of like Freenet + a resource based
> currency.

True.

> You do not want a filesharing system as it removes any hope of
> plausible deniability for content.

Huh?

If it's encrypted and anonymous it's deniable by all, and even billed
for "filesharing" is fine, at least currently, due to legal free speech
uses riding within. Though if you bill it for "illegal copyright infringement',
you yourself might take heat for "incitement", but the network itself would
still be safe. Such network nodes themselves, like I2P / Tor / Freenet,
operate freely because of that principle, and it's been proven out
successfully so far for maybe 15-20 years. Strongly encrypted + strongly
anonymous + decentralized works in this space. Unfortunately, few qualify...

Napster, gnutella, limewire, kazaa, bittorrent, whatever... when run over
clearnet... of course they all get shutdown. Due to some combination
of centralized, not encrypted, not anonymous.... no deniability there.

Wikipedia is a bit scattered, but here's some references.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P