Show HN: Decentralized, Mutable, Serverless Torrent Swarm Websites

Post by Latty » Sun, Dec 12, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

DarylZero wrote: post #177

Latty wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that inconsistent? Just because it's good to have access to something doesn't mean we want it everywhere . This goes for a lot of things. It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. It is important that there are places you can't be censored, but that doesn't mean every place should be forced to be unfiltered firehoses. Curation…

Whether "we want it everywhere" and whether "it is the problem" are different questions. > It would be a problem if there was nowhere you could urinate, but that doesn't make rules against urinating in the street bad. If you couldn't urinate anywhere legally, you wouldn't consider the laws against urination a problem?

Post by walteweiss » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 7:53 AM UTC

rakoo wrote: post #157

Very nice work ! I wanted to do something similar a long time ago but never took the time. Congratulations ! A few points: - is this using webtorrent-the-library or webtorrent-the-protocol ? If it's the latter it's a bit useless. The only reason the protocol exists is to make web browsers speak a similar language as bittorrent, but both protocols are strictly different. Which means if you want to talk both you need t…

Post by brokenmachine » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 10:25 AM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #146

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.

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.

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Dec 13, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

forty wrote: post #172

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just because they can have weapons somehow is not a reason to make it very easy and legal. Laws have costs and benefits. When the benefits are not actually realized in practice, that's relevant. > Firearm are not defense tools. If someone shoot you, I don't see how it will save your life or protect you. If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if yo…

> If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. Maybe there is a gentleman rule among firearm owners to let the other side the opportunity to shoot first, but there is always the risk of someone not following that…

Post by forty » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #187

forty wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone is trying to kill you and you kill them first, this is more likely to lead to your survival than if you just let them kill you. And if this is more likely to happen, they are more likely to not attempt to kill you at risk to their own life. Maybe there is a gentleman rule among firearm owners to let the other side the opportunity to shoot first, but there is always the risk of someone not following that…

They can try to shoot first. That doesn't mean they always will, or that their first shot won't miss. Or that you won't still manage to shoot them even if they hit you first, the risk of which acts as a deterrent.