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

Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

freenetproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 443 posts

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#271

Post by CRConrad »

test542 wrote: post #138
mullingitover wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok, I get it. You're against free speech. Another day, another person confusing 'free speech' with a private publisher not wanting to publish hate speech. You're entitled to print what you want, you're not entitled to force someone else to print anything.

No one is printing anything.

Yeah, because you're perfectly willing to accept that your "free speech!" can't compel someone else to operate their printing press for you... But a server on the Internet is such a totally different thing, for sure!

IOW: This ancient figure of speech is used precisely to show that the issue is exactly the same old one that has been thoroughly hashed out for centuries.

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#272

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

hamstergene wrote: post #224
ddtaylor wrote: post #68

Some HN users are stuck in an interesting privacy paradox. Most of the time when a company or government tries to undermine privacy or encryption they jump at the throat and point out the need for both. However, it seems when we actually accomplish those goals and create systems that are truly anonymous, private and/or encrypted they basically say it's only for criminals and child abuse.

There is a feature in English to call the same thing different words depending on one's moral judgement towards them. Shooting a person dead is a "kill" if a homeowner has defended himself from a burglar, but a "murder" if the burglar has fired first. My language for comparison only uses a single word, regardless of circumstances. That's where the paradox has to be coming from. When they say "end censorship" they mea…

I think when most people talk about "ending censorship" they are talking very specifically about speech. Any link between the idea of speech and the sharing of child abuse material or drug marketplaces is extremely tenuous. Most non-anarchists agree that there are reasonable limits that must be placed on behaviors and enforced by governments. Trying to claim "not letting me buy drugs online is censorship" feels like little more than mental gymnastics.

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#274

Post by intricatedetail »

bananamerica wrote: post #263

Everyone wants absolute free speech until their platform is taken over by conspiracy freaks, white supremacists, nazis, and anti vaxxers...

Don't forget about activists and competition posting illegal content and then reporting it.

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#275

Post by bananamerica »

ArneBab wrote: post #270
bananamerica wrote: post #263

Everyone wants absolute free speech until their platform is taken over by conspiracy freaks, white supremacists, nazis, and anti vaxxers...

And then you find out, whether your moderation works. Point in case: On Freenet it does. But I had to close down my youtube comments on my channel completely when they discovered my youtube-Account. Because it’s the clearnet where moderation sucks. Its actually scaling, fully decentralized moderation system is how Freenet keeps communication friendly with actual pseudonymity and privacy protection: https://www.draket…

I know some of the words you used.

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#276

Post by cto_of_antifa »

ArneBab wrote: post #222
midev wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe it’s because the education system has failed at critical thinking Sure, education can improve things. But this is a problem even worse outside the United States, so it's hard to blame it on a single education system.

It’s not just the education system. It’s our structures of information that are based on engagement (to drive ad-revenue) instead of value to the reader. And this is something Freenet actually solves to some degree. Because it had to. This is why in Freenet we know the Zen of Tolerance: https://www.draketo.de/politik/random-babcom#the-zen-of-tole... - You are entitled to voice your opinion. - You are not entitled to…

The problem with the the idea of tolerance in discourse like online communities is the paradox of tolerance: that we must necessarily be tolerant to intolerance.

Ideas that call for violence of all sorts don't need to be articulated in an ugly way. In fact, the most effective rhetoric isn't. For example, think of the "just asking questions" style of representing an argument.

This is the sort of rhetoric that places like hackernews is incredibly susceptible to, since it unironically subscribes to that same idea of the "free marketplace of ideas" that's blind to the difference between the content of speech and its actual effects.

Think of it this way: what's the applied use of "debunking the argument" of somebody yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater?

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#277

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

ogurechny wrote: post #163
kafkaIncarnate wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like pictures of modern child abuse, child slavery (IE: ownership, sale, etc), and brutal torturous murder. Basically anything you've thought of the NSA or other intelligence agencies intercepting, it was wide out in the open there. The types of things you'd see kids telling themselves about urban legends of the "darkweb", well, it was extremely real and in the open on Freenet...

You forgot UFO parts for sale, bulk jenkem supply in railroad tank cars, and LSD application over screen oscillation, because you certainly was on something when you've seen those urban legends of the “darkweb” . By the way, I really hate meaningless spooky terms like “dark web” and “dark net”. I can still remember the time before journalists invented them.

TIL 'jenkem'.

BRRR!

edit: though bulk delivery by railroad car may be technically correct, just add some heat, or let the car stand for a while.

One does not need to imagine the 'epic whiffs' coming from that, because it happens IRL!

[0] https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/poop-train-full-of-nyc-sew...

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#279

Post by haroldp »

beyond_godlike wrote: post #278

For the vast majority of people, some degree of censorship is deemed a necessary evil.. Where do you draw the line when freenet evolves to be more than just free speech and starts seeing morally reprehensible services pop up..

Same question, but for the telephone.

Re: Freenet is a peer-to-peer platform for censorship-resistant communication

#280

Post by b5 »

pnathan wrote: post #262

I've run Freenet twice in the last twenty years. Maybe 2006, 2012? Each time CSAM was surprisingly visible. Maybe these days it's kicked off to a corner but back then it was pretty much a click away. I'm going to have to say if that's the basic motivation for censorship resistant communication in the USA, I am disappointed and sad. Wonder if it's actually useful in places where you actually have censorship, or if it'…

That was my experience too, the few times I tried it. I haven't been back for just that reason. There's nothing that I can do on there that I can't do on the real internet and even the tiniest risk of CSAM material reaching my machine is not worth it.

It's sad but I think in most modern democracies that are relatively free, like the USA and EU, the primary use for these services is CSAM. There's no other reason to use it, except maybe paranoia or technical curiosity, and only the former will keep someone using it. The technically curious will move on quite quickly.

Post reply on HN