Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 414 posts

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#371

Post by the_af »

jquery wrote: post #366
the_af wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alt-text is also only illuminating in the sense that the CCP might heartily agree with it as well, as they see their crusade against free speech as nothing more than maintaining the public order and peace. Which alt-text did you read? It cannot possibly be this one: > "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; y…

> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’…

> Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent

That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it.

> Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism

At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#372

Post by rasengan »

freedomben wrote: post #369
rasengan wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone…

> To be clear, this set consists of any developer on github who had 15 or more followers in 2019, the PGP web of trust strong set, and anyone on HN who had a keybase account in their profile. Could you clarify a bit for me? I checked both of those boxes. Does that mean I have some of this premined crypto somewhere? How would I get to it? The paper you linked to is very long, but I am intrigued so will likely check it…

Absolutely! There is a page that describes the airdrop and includes a script to claim it [1]. If you have checked those boxes, it very well does mean you may have some premined somewhere. You could also try Bob [2] as well.

I agree with you! Recent times have shown how much we need the decentralized web than ever before.

[1] https://github.com/handshake-org/hs-airdrop

[2] https://github.com/kyokan/bob-wallet

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#373

Post by the_af »

a1369209993 wrote: post #348
the_af wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I disagree with XKCD's (and let me note, with many here on HN; I believe I first read this argument that only states can interfere with free speech defended by HN'ers) narrowing down of the concept of free speech to "only counts as censorship if the government does it" -- and it actually warms my heart that you and many others agree with me that corporate censorship is censorship, and even more important than s…

> It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports [something that he calls "free speech"] and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic [definition] of "free speech" than you. Sure, and…

You're using ridicule in order to avoid addressing my point. I'm uninterested in engaging you in those terms, particularly since I was polite in my reply to you. Your snarky reply failed to address anything of importance.

You pretty much ignored my reply, did a silly search & replace (ignoring HN's guidelines of assuming good faith and replying to the best possible interpretation) and decided to feel clever about it. Thanks, but no thanks.

> Who are you responding to?

Not you in that particular sentence, but user bonoboTP and others in this thread.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#374

Post by alacombe »

shakow wrote: post #122
fjabre wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully with Dems in control we will see these companies punished for their bad behavior. Or at least laws passed that make the publication of research more open. The science should be funded and free. The applications of the science are where the money is to be made. These companies are unnecessary dinosaurs from a bygone era. It's time for them to fail and die off naturally. But it will probably take legislation…

> Or at least laws passed that make the publication of research more open. Sci-hub was created under Obama, I don't remember neither him nor the party making anything to help them, quite the opposite actually: Elbakyan has been judged in absentia and sentenced twice under his presidency. Were she to put the foot on Western soil, she would pay it dearly thanks to this.

The Obama AG killed Aaron Swartz.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#375

Post by rasengan »

tialaramex wrote: post #370
rasengan wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sort of the same way DNS happened. Actually, almost everything happened that way in the history of mankind, right? xD > the people who start that infrastructure do it with a traded coin All the names could be registered by one monopolistic player on the public blockchain. That's why a cost function is required. > that they've premined, allocated huge chunks of to themselves A huge chunk was not allocated to anyone…

> you absolutely don't need to use the new internet if you don't want to Yeah, no, that's not how this works. People don't want your "new internet". People want the Network, and in our era it so happens that's the Internet (previously it was the Public Switched Telephone Network, and before that the Universal Postal Union). But it isn't your "new internet" of a few enthusiasts who are sure it'll work this time even t…

> People want the Network, and in our era it so happens that's the Internet (previously it was the Public Switched Telephone Network, and before that the Universal Postal Union).

You're absolutely right in that it changes.

> Historically most attempted revolutions fail.

Yet, my statement still stands: Historically, revolutions happen all the time. Risk of failure is not a reason not to proceed. As they say, "give me liberty or give me death!"

> ICANN's control of the DNS root is by consent

I agree with you completely. Let's see for how much longer the people will consent to their rule vs a democratic rule by the commons!

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#376

Post by tialaramex »

t0mbstone wrote: post #180
emacdona wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Followed by this: 'Handshake is “is effectively a decentralized domain name server,” Roquerre said.' -- thus implying that DNS is NOT decentralized? The article is pretty bad. For his sake, I hope they are taking his quotes out of context. Because I had a quick look at https://www.namebase.io/ -- and it does look interesting. It appears that they have decentralized the REGISTRY by putting it on the "Handshake" blockc…

DNS isn't completely "decentralized" because it still relies on root name servers, which are controlled by ICANN.

Only the L root is controlled by ICANN

A and J are controlled by Verisign (a US public company)

B and D by different US universities

C by Cogent (another US public company)

E by NASA

F by Internet Systems Consortium (an American not-for-profit)

G by the US Department of Defense

H by the US Army

I by Netnod (a Swedish non-profit)

K by RIPE (the European RIR)

and finally M by WIDE (a project of several Japanese universities)

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#377

Post by nickodell »

troquerre wrote: post #278
nickodell wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does your service differ from NameCoin?

Handshake has taken a lot of lessons from previous attempts at alternative blockchain DNS roots like NameCoin. Here are some ways its different: - Handshake names are not *.bit domains like NameCoin they're actually top-level domains. This is because Handshake's purpose is not to decentralize domain names per se but too decentralize the root zone and create a more secure root of trust than Certificate Authorities [1]…

I was looking for a more technical response.

e.g. How are new blocks created? Proof of work, predefined functionaries, something else?

You say you have SPV proofs which allow a full node to prove a particular domain is owned by a particular party. How does that work?

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#378

Post by ajkjk »

alentist wrote: post #365
ajkjk wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not asking you to trust my judgment of who's a nazi. I get to decide who I think is a nazi and do what I want, _as a person_, and so do you. Of course I will try to convince you that I'm right, but if someone's being a nazi and can't be convinced that they're saying nazi stuff and they get banned from society, that's their problem, not society's. They should have listened. The point is that while free speech migh…

That’s not what you said. You said you would punch them.

uh... so? two examples of things people do to vile people.

to be clear: if someone shouts nazi stuff around me and I'm driven to anger enough to punch them (which, to be clear, has never happened, but hypothetically), I obviously accept the legal consequences of that. the whole point here is that legal rules abut what you should do are not ethical ones. Ethically, don't shout nazi stuff, and also ethically if you do shout nazi stuff you might get punched and you deserve it.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#379

Post by aufhebung »

woodrowbarlow wrote: post #322
skynet-9000 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.

i'm not aware of any ISPs that have taken that step in the US, but since the 2017 repeal it is now a legal business strategy. it has happened in portugal (although that's irrelevant to US law) -- customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) (this is on top of the subscription fee…

>customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) According to snopes this doesn't seem to be fully accurate. There was a mobile plan with which you could buy extra data for different services (which I admit is not ideal), but no extra package to "unlock" services.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#380

Post by alentist »

ajkjk wrote: post #378
alentist wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what you said. You said you would punch them.

uh... so? two examples of things people do to vile people. to be clear: if someone shouts nazi stuff around me and I'm driven to anger enough to punch them (which, to be clear, has never happened, but hypothetically), I obviously accept the legal consequences of that. the whole point here is that legal rules abut what you should do are not ethical ones. Ethically, don't shout nazi stuff, and also ethically if you do…

> uh... so?

Don't play coy. Punching someone is not the same thing as "showing them the door".

Post reply on HN