Feds Demand Reddit Identify Users of a Dark-Web Drug Forum

Post by grrowl » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 12:49 AM UTC

dublinben wrote: post #92

technofiend wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WoT is pointless when people can manufacture identities that trust each other and build a fake trust score for an id used to spam or whatever.

WoT can't be effectively spammed, unless those spam accounts are trusted by people you trust. The spam accounts can vouch for each other all they want (a la Twitter), but you control whose trust you value.

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:13 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #173

rayiner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug opponents aren't just some religious nuts though. Aside from marijuana, the overwhelming majority of the population supports keeping drugs illegal. Support for legalizing things like cocaine is under 10%. And the homosexuality reference above is a red-herring. Nobody ever broke into someone's house in a state of diminished cognition because of gay sex.

> Drug opponents aren't just some religious nuts though. You're making a comment in the context of the article. All of the parent comments to mine made much broader statements in response to the root comment that was a more general statement. "If you break the law, then you have no right to complain when you go to jail." This is what I was responding to. It touches more than just drug law.

Post by sroerick » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:38 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #44

nickysielicki wrote: post #3

We (speaking as a netizen) need Usenet 2.0; eg: something that can fulfill the role of reddit that is decentralized/distributed. Perhaps reddit can even transition into being a reader (a la google reader) for people that don't want to set up their own node. I'm not saying that drug discussion is the quintessential act that deserves to be protected, but I am worried that the government has such an easy avenue to get t…

Well, Usenet 1.0 was decentralised, and people need to think about the disadvantages. In the early 2000s well over 50% of the traffic was spam cancels. An forum without an "owner" who can delete posts and effectively ban spammers and "abuse" will promptly be filled with spam and abuse. The issue of "abuse" which is harmful to people other than users of the forum should also be considered carefully.

Post by dllthomas » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:49 AM UTC

karmacondon wrote: post #135

john_b wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "They'll deflect, ignore, and basically try anything to escape the reality - they broke the rules of society and now society wants to punish them." I think most people, criminals or otherwise, understand this quite well. In fact, I'd guess that criminals understand it better than non-criminals. What some people don't seem to understand (or even want to think about) is that the law is often a pitiful and nationally…

People who break the law are criminals, period. It doesn't matter if the law is just or unjust, or whether or not you personally agree with it. The simple fact is that the majority of citizens don't want online drug dealing to be legal, so it isn't legal. Equating drug dealers with Ghandi, MLK and the US Founding Fathers is a stretch at the least and outright offensive at worst. These people aren't making bold politi…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 2:32 AM UTC

grrowl wrote: post #181

dublinben wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WoT can't be effectively spammed, unless those spam accounts are trusted by people you trust. The spam accounts can vouch for each other all they want (a la Twitter), but you control whose trust you value.

It only takes one break in the chain to compromise the entire web of trust. With such wide-spread connections across the planet these days, the chance of someone you trust three times removed accidentally breaking that chain is quite real.