51–60 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, the US has "section 230" that absolves services providers of liability for content their users post.
Not much. While this may keep you out of jail, it will not prevent you from being raided at four in the morning and having your pets shot and all your computers seized for months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you get kicked off a mastodon server, you lose your followers and posts unless you're able to move your account before you're kicked off - which requires the cooperation of the server that wants to kick you off. > If nobody wants to hear you spewing your stuff then you'll soon be screaming into the void but what you post will still be viewable on the web and to those that subscribe to you. People who are de-platfo…
> It wasn't that "no one" wanted to hear them, but that the people that controlled the platform didn't want others to be able to hear them. More accurately, it was because they repeatedly broke the terms of service and the companies were no longer willing to use their resources to provide free amplification for them. They had legal agreements with the platform and despite many warnings and leeway which isn’t extended…
The biggest problem I see here is forwarding someone else's unknown and unencrypted content. Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Unlike an email client, your relay actually makes that message available to anyone. Unlike an email relay, you are not forwarding the message to someone else like a dumb pipe; there's no fin…
For what it's worth, the US has "section 230" that absolves services providers of liability for content their users post.
Moderation is an essential part of community management, even in darknets. Trust in what is said and what is promised as part of a transaction is what attracts and retains members of the community. Just because you can create a censorship resistant network doesn't mean you should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds a lot like building a car by attaching an engine and a steering wheel to a frame, and worrying about addressing problems (such as seats, gear switching, seatbelts, airbags, doors, windshield, ...) only as they occur. Which I guess is kinda fine if you're building slow go-karts to do friendly races with your neighbor in their backyard - but instead you're already letting those out on the open roads on day…
You've just described 100 years of car evolution. Similar to software architecture, you do start by defining the preferred characteristics and then working your way to the other parts.
On purpose. You can't build a car today that ignores these learnings, and safely deploy it on the open roads; just like you can't build what's effectively an open relay like it's 1997 and expect to stay safe against the threats outlined by nine_k.
Does somebody know whether the same or something similar could be achieved by using the "Network News Transfer Protocol" (nntp), without designing a whole new protocol?
> NNTP is an application protocol used for transporting Usenet news articles (netnews) between news servers, and for reading/posting articles by the end user client applications.
nostr relays are not supposed to connect with other relays (I think to avoid the inevitable concentration of centralized hubs), which is a small but very significant difference
The biggest problem I see here is forwarding someone else's unknown and unencrypted content. Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Unlike an email client, your relay actually makes that message available to anyone. Unlike an email relay, you are not forwarding the message to someone else like a dumb pipe; there's no fin…
> Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Relays can be authenticated. If you don't want your relay to accept data from anyone, don't leave it open. Same with any other Internet protocol. Also, per the spec or convention, relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. Each relay is a separate island, but the protocol permits and re…
Also, it seems naive to think that a ban on blocklists in the spec will keep real free humans from doing exactly as they’ve done on email, Mastodon etc and share block lists.
I don't understand Nostr's comments on trying to be deplatform-proof. On Mastodon, for example, if you get kicked off a node just spin up your own node. If nobody wants to hear you spewing your stuff then you'll soon be screaming into the void but what you post will still be viewable on the web and to those that subscribe to you. So I don't get what Nostr is trying to do.
If you get kicked off a mastodon server, you lose your followers and posts unless you're able to move your account before you're kicked off - which requires the cooperation of the server that wants to kick you off. > If nobody wants to hear you spewing your stuff then you'll soon be screaming into the void but what you post will still be viewable on the web and to those that subscribe to you. People who are de-platfo…
They have platforms they could go to. Parler, Rumble, Truth Social, their own blogs/websites, running a Polermo or Mastodon instance.
Twitter was a giant public pool. For the most part everyone was chill. And then the trolls arrived and started shitting and peeing in the pool. Swimming in that pool (the algorithmic timeline and such) became horrible.
My idea that it was less about the "powers that be" deplatforming people and more not owning the platform you post on. I love the federated social movement and the push for people whom I agree with and disagree with to own their platforms I am just saying that the "wo is me, my megaphone was taken away from me and now I have no way to access the hordes of other trolls that think and spew the hate that I do" is a false narrative because nothing was stopping them from creating their own platforms with off-the-shelf tools or spinning up websites like the Drudge Report or blogs or going to the other places where they like the alt-right or other fringe folks.
The biggest problem I see here is forwarding someone else's unknown and unencrypted content. Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Unlike an email client, your relay actually makes that message available to anyone. Unlike an email relay, you are not forwarding the message to someone else like a dumb pipe; there's no fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine you're running a relay on your machine, and somebody posts some CSAM, or stolen CC data, or hate speech, etc through your relay. Relays can be authenticated. If you don't want your relay to accept data from anyone, don't leave it open. Same with any other Internet protocol. Also, per the spec or convention, relays SHALL NOT talk to each other. Each relay is a separate island, but the protocol permits and re…
The whole reason I was excited about Nostr was the censorship resistance but if the relays choose who gets to authenticate you’re back to square one (well, whichever square Mastodon is). Also, it seems naive to think that a ban on blocklists in the spec will keep real free humans from doing exactly as they’ve done on email, Mastodon etc and share block lists.
You're probably right about shared blacklists eventually becoming a thing though.