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

Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 190 posts

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#141

Post by forty »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
schleck8 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st…

> Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally The US has a high rate of firearms fatalities. Around two thirds of these are suicides. Around zero thirds of them are school shootings. School shootings are sufficiently rare that when they happen, they make national news. Which is catastrophic, because studies have shown that media coverage of school shootings induces school shootings. It's at…

> People with a criminal history who go back to a life of crime just get a gun through their criminal organization the same way they get the illegal drugs they're dealing.

just because they can have weapons somehow is not a reason to make it very easy and legal.

> people with a criminal history who reform themselves will commonly also carry a gun, for self-defense against criminals from their past life.

Firearm are not defense tools. If someone shoot you, I don't see how it will save your life or protect you.

> Banning possession of a technology is weak. If you wrongfully shoot someone, you should go to prison. If you have a gun and don't harm anyone with it, no one should have a problem with that.

I live in a country that ban guns, and I'm not aware of a reason why it would affect anyone's life negatively. There are certainly less death by firearm though.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#142

Post by noduerme »

noduerme wrote: post #135
publiush wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an important debate that comes up all too often. I do think this is the proper forum for this, so I'm glad you brought this up and I would be happy to share my thoughts. The more information people have had in the history of humanity, the more freedoms and liberties we have also had. We would likely still be living in monarchies if not for the spread of information -- North Korea is a prime example. If inform…

Censorship would be shutting things down after the fact. I think the important question now is whether it's irresponsible to build channels that (A) terrorists will find useful, (B) will allow them to look more savvy and attractive than they actually are, (C) seed their ideas to a wider audience than they have - see [1] - and (D) count on less motivated people with nonviolent ideas and less time on their hands to off…

Just to add to this. Back in 2012 I started coding something that I considered a necessary libertarian corrective to the centralized social networking world. I'm not going to post the idea here because I still consider it too explosive. Thankfully no one has done it yet. There came a point deep into the development when I realized that all my arguments to the contrary - arguments which sounded exactly like yours - were wrong. The system I was building to free humanity from centralized, moderated, let's say channeled forms of controversy, would be exploited by the worst, not the best. The fascists and the trolls would absolutely dominate the space, and if they did, the stakes would be life and death. And it would be me who had built that space that they were now using; a space they couldn't have conceived of themselves. This was why I shut the project down. Looking back, I was right. What's happened with FB and Twitter and January 6th was a pale shadow of what my concept might have opened up, in those years, when anyone was looking for any new platform. The sickening thing is that while we're in the business of opening up communication and tell ourselves we're creating liberty, we do have to weigh the question of whether average Joes are ready for it and be honest with ourselves - a lot of times they're not.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#143

Post by ipaddr »

viraptor wrote: post #132
ipaddr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your terror group is someone else freedom fighter. What is celebrated today is scorned tomorrow. Asking what if some group we want to stop uses a technology misses the point. Paper can be used by terrorist to make plans for terror and communicate should we reconsider paper? Who is to blame when paper and pen are used to do things we disapprove of?

There's a big difference here: paper is typically traceable to the source without much hassle. This tech is partially traceable to redistributors only.

That's a weak reason. I could make my own paper.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#144

Post by chii »

noduerme wrote: post #142
noduerme wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship would be shutting things down after the fact. I think the important question now is whether it's irresponsible to build channels that (A) terrorists will find useful, (B) will allow them to look more savvy and attractive than they actually are, (C) seed their ideas to a wider audience than they have - see [1] - and (D) count on less motivated people with nonviolent ideas and less time on their hands to off…

Just to add to this. Back in 2012 I started coding something that I considered a necessary libertarian corrective to the centralized social networking world. I'm not going to post the idea here because I still consider it too explosive. Thankfully no one has done it yet. There came a point deep into the development when I realized that all my arguments to the contrary - arguments which sounded exactly like yours - we…

> a space they couldn't have conceived of themselves.

It is hubris to think that only you could've conceived this idea. Eventually someone else would.

If you released, and controlled it, at least you have a way to control the spread of misinformation on it.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#145

Post by noduerme »

chii wrote: post #144
noduerme wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add to this. Back in 2012 I started coding something that I considered a necessary libertarian corrective to the centralized social networking world. I'm not going to post the idea here because I still consider it too explosive. Thankfully no one has done it yet. There came a point deep into the development when I realized that all my arguments to the contrary - arguments which sounded exactly like yours - we…

> a space they couldn't have conceived of themselves. It is hubris to think that only you could've conceived this idea. Eventually someone else would. If you released, and controlled it, at least you have a way to control the spread of misinformation on it.

So far I'm the only one that has conceived of it, but even if it was conceived of by the leaders of the KKK, they wouldn't have as good a chance of building it successfully and making it work to their benefit as if a self-interested techie liberal libertarian did all the hard stuff for them. Pretty much none of the people dumb enough to spend their lives spreading online hate would be capable of building the platforms they use to spread their garbage. Show me a nazi who's using a computer and a network and a website they invented themselves, or could ever invent in a million years if left to their own self-destructive devices. It's not hubris to realize that they lack the intellect and means but are perfectly willing to game the results. Also, to wit, "if you controlled it" is hubris when you're talking about any large online platform, but it makes no sense at all if you're talking about something decentralized.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#146

Post by noduerme »

chii wrote: post #144
noduerme wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add to this. Back in 2012 I started coding something that I considered a necessary libertarian corrective to the centralized social networking world. I'm not going to post the idea here because I still consider it too explosive. Thankfully no one has done it yet. There came a point deep into the development when I realized that all my arguments to the contrary - arguments which sounded exactly like yours - we…

> a space they couldn't have conceived of themselves. It is hubris to think that only you could've conceived this idea. Eventually someone else would. If you released, and controlled it, at least you have a way to control the spread of misinformation on it.

Also, it's entirely possible that a lot of other people besides me have conceived of the idea - I'm sure I'm probably not the only one - and maybe all of them discarded it because they realized what it would lead to. I will say that if I ever see it in practice, I'll make it my life's mission to attack it and strangle it in its crib.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#147

Post by DennisAleynikov »

m1sta_ wrote: post #134
toolz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are school shootings the bar here? Do we care about murdered children, or very specifically only murdered children in school by a gun? Certainly the US has tons of room for improvement, but it seems very disingenuous to cherry-pick a subset of what people actually care about just to oversell your point.

It's an example, and a compelling one. That is not the same as cherry picking.

School shooting statistics are a deeply uncompelling example.

Tragedies are often non statistically relevant

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#148

Post by throaway46546 »

dave_sullivan wrote: post #127
throaway46546 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An AR-15 style rifle is not an assault rifle. The definition of an assault rifle is "a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine". Selective fire means "the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode". These were banned by the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. There are "assault weapon" bans like that in my…

This is the kind of autistic pedantry I come to HN for. I don't know what I was thinking.

thank you

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#149

Post by schleck8 »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #147
m1sta_ wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an example, and a compelling one. That is not the same as cherry picking.

School shooting statistics are a deeply uncompelling example. Tragedies are often non statistically relevant

Luckily in this case they are.

Re: Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

#150

Post by throwaway14356 »

noduerme wrote: post #145
chii wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a space they couldn't have conceived of themselves. It is hubris to think that only you could've conceived this idea. Eventually someone else would. If you released, and controlled it, at least you have a way to control the spread of misinformation on it.

So far I'm the only one that has conceived of it, but even if it was conceived of by the leaders of the KKK, they wouldn't have as good a chance of building it successfully and making it work to their benefit as if a self-interested techie liberal libertarian did all the hard stuff for them. Pretty much none of the people dumb enough to spend their lives spreading online hate would be capable of building the platform…

well put. The things you forgot: 1) trolling is also a type of moderation. It will unmake whatever serious effort if 1-2 persons disagree hard enough. 2) sure, there will be facists but those technically seek is the opposite of the platform. 3) however weird or undesirabe some ideologie is we can give it time to come to its senses before we go full retard enforcing our own. if we cant the other idea deserves to win. its how humanity always did its thing. give us enough time and we the people burn everything to the ground and start fresh. its like a fee we must pay. millions have to die for the eventual idiot ruling class to be at least some what replaced by people with interests beyond their own.

if the facists won the war our ideas would be the ones that desperately need to be silenced by them.

just have the battle royal of weird ideas out in the open. if the muskian forced brain chipians win we do that for a while. it only seems more stupid than say mandatory/forced experimental medication for everyone, putting people in cages for smoking weed, starvation salaries, selling cars that go faster than the speed limit. etc etc

maybe everything i wrote here is the best example of a stupid idea? should we investigate or just press delete?

Post reply on HN