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

IPFS Support in Brave

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#371

Post by jamienicol »

echelon wrote: post #112
barbacoa wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation." One has to read closely to pick up on the doublespeak. They are calling for the use of algorithms to hide ideas they disagree with and artificially promote ideas they agree with. It is soft censorship but far more sinister.

Damn, that's insidious. The people downvoting me would be terrified if it were Trump that had this power. My belief is that nobody should have this power. edit: You merry downvoters that believe we shouldn't have freedom of speech should move somewhere freedom of speech isn't permitted. That way you won't have to be offended anymore. Although I think it would be fitting if you don't have a say as to which speech is p…

> move somewhere freedom of speech isn't permitted

We're on hackernews, where comments are indeed moderated

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#372

Post by xvector »

hkt wrote: post #348
CyberRabbi wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can effectively cast your political opponents as “terrorists” you can rationalize denying them all sorts of rights and still get to call yourself a supporter of human rights. They did a similar thing during the Iraq war.

Iraq seems a little different to an armed invasion of.. the capitol building. No?

One day, people may actually need to invade the Capitol building, but it will never happen because of your eagerness to create an authoritarian state that shuts down all controversial discourse.

If we deplatformed every “violent thug” that did something people didn’t like, you would have a fraction of the rights you have today.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#373

Post by xevrem »

input_sh wrote: post #355
toyg wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an extension for everything, that’s not the point. Firefox ships it as standard and supports it as such.

There's a similar thing shipped in Chrome now called Tab Groups, you just have to enable it behind chrome://flags. In my view it's nowhere near as nice as it is on Firefox, with site isolation (Facebook, Google, Twitter, reddit), temporary containers, and a myriad of other add-ons that improve managing them (keyboard shortcuts and transition rules are the two I use the most).

tab groups are not equivalent to containers.

its more like Vivaldi's tab stacks or FF's Tree Tabs. With groups there are no inherent additional security mechanisms in place to prevent cross-group contamination/access. i.e., two different tab groups can access the same site data.

containers however are completely isolated from each other. i.e., two different containers have completely different sets of site data.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#374

Post by stkdump »

kortilla wrote: post #352
stkdump wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech should not guarantee 'right to global reach'. People should be allowed to say what they think to an amount of people who they can have personal relationships with, their neighbors, relatively close colleagues and similar. Deplatforming should not take this away, it should just take the biggest megaphone away mankind invented to date.

It’s still speech suppression and support of it, even if you think it’s justified.

Sure, in the same vein as building a dam is water suppression. It doesn't take away any right, it's about the limits of a right.

You also suppress freedom of speech indirectly when you put someone in prison, so any crime punished by imprisonment seems to be considered reason enough to justify that as well.

Saying that freedom of speech can't ever be limited is a very ideological point of view, so far away from reality that I wouldn't consider it worth debating at all.

Now there is a valid argument to be made, how decisions to deplatform a person should be made and/or how such decisions can be appealed.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#375

Post by drak0n1c »

gadders wrote: post #356

"Hey, check out this cool image of a van Gogh painting I found. It's at ipfs://bafybeiemxf5abjwjbikoz4mc3a3dla6ual3jsgpdr4cjr3oz3evfyavhwq/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html" I think they need to work on making these urls human readable.

That's what IPNS is doing, which is like DNS for IPFS. Another comment mentioned this example: ipns://kickscondor.com

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#377

Post by ric2b »

kortilla wrote: post #147
babypuncher wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla makes an entire browser. Brave takes an existing browser (Chromium) and adds some extra features to the UI and networking stack. Modern web browsers are incredibly complex pieces of software. The overwhelming majority of code in Brave's repository is shared with Chromium. What Brave's developers do and what Mozilla's developers do are not comparable.

You’re either saying: Mozilla can’t afford to hire another set of developers to add IPFS, Firefox is too poorly written for this to be reasonably done, or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try. None of the reasons really sheds a good like on Mozilla.

It's the first one, they can't afford it, they actually laid off a bunch of people less than a year ago.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#379

Post by solanav »

devops000 wrote: post #378

Basically, someone could copy paywalled contents and distribute them on IPFS ? Or any copyrighted content. https://github.com/victorb/ipfscrape

Just like with HTTP yeah. You can download a webpage and publish it with Apache or NGINX too. Are you implying this is bad?

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#380

Post by devops000 »

solanav wrote: post #379
devops000 wrote: post #378

Basically, someone could copy paywalled contents and distribute them on IPFS ? Or any copyrighted content. https://github.com/victorb/ipfscrape

Just like with HTTP yeah. You can download a webpage and publish it with Apache or NGINX too. Are you implying this is bad?

Well, with IPFS it's anonymous and unremovable, right?
Post reply on HN