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

371–380 of 443 posts

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

#371

Post by CRConrad »

h_anna_h wrote: post #363
CRConrad wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about that. Stands to reason, AFAICS, that "MY freedoms (and screw yours)!" ideologically resonates more on the right than the left: The whole left-right dichotomy is one of ~ "my freedoms above all" vs "freedoms for all, balanced with responsibility for all".

I think that this is extremely simplistic. For example it does not account for individualist anarchism or the collectivist "for our country/nation/race" pushed by various fascist governments.

I can't see how "doesn't cover absolutely all corner cases" equals "extremely simplistic". I'm fairly sure that in broad terms, "left / right" covers the political spectrum the absolute majority of people inhabit. Your objection feels like futile quibbling to me.

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

#372

Post by CRConrad »

h_anna_h wrote: post #364
user-the-name wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying THAT is the "hostile and toxic" response that is not in good faith, but you are fine with "Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?"

> that is not in good faith I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith. > but you are fine with Yes, I explained why I said it in the post that you are replying to. My biggest mistake was using sarcasm to convey the message I guess. Anyway, it would be nice if you focused on the essence of my post instead of the weak presentation of my last point.

> > that is not in good faith

> I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.

Oh yeah? Quoting the admonition to "Assume good faith" at me in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28591865 certainly at least strongly implies the opposite.

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

#373

Post by ogurechny »

Nursie wrote: post #362
ogurechny wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I've meant exactly what I've meant. There is an experience of seeing some links, and there's a conclusion that the network is mainly used by pedophiles. Even if all the data was 100% child porn (which is technically impossible, but whatever), I still can't see how the former transforms into the latter. Or maybe it was just parroting the “common knowledge”. Another kind of common knowledge is that law enforcement…

Sorry this is nonsense, seeing something outrageous within seconds of getting on freenet was also my experience about 15 years ago, and I certainly didn’t go looking for it. Things may have improved on the common indexes since then, I’ve not been back to check, but you seek to whitewash and diminish the problem which is not great either.

I'm not whitewashing, I'm trying to make people reflect on their reasoning.

What exactly is the problem? That child exploitation exists, or that you are reminded that it exists (and prefer not to be reminded)? It doesn't stop from you not using Freenet, and it doesn't stop from everyone not using Freenet (for anything). If you believe that it's only good for child porn, it's your opinion; others might think differently.

For some reason, people find a simple idea that you need to tolerate people you don't approve of because other people also tolerate you hard to get. Freenet is basically a technical implementation of Voltaire's quote — and any real censorship-resistant network will be same.

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

#374

Post by zepto »

h_anna_h wrote: post #366
quotemstr wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be. I much prefer the US model of free speech. Free speech only for ideas that the government doesn't consider dangerous isn't free speech at all.

> In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be This is false.

What ideas are listed as terrorist organizations in the US?

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

#375

Post by lr4444lr »

cgtzczykldpq wrote: post #315
lr4444lr wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...hence you're not responsible for what it could be decrypted to. You do NOT want your defense in court to rest on convincing a judge or jury of this.

So we must shut down all hotels because they all unknowingly hosted some illegal activities in their rooms, e.g. if someone met a prostitute there? In fact we cannot have people rent out condos or houses anymore either because illegal stuff will happen there and the owner is responsible even if they don't know! Also we need to shut down all ISPs because at some point in time illegal data was cached on their machines…

I don't think this deserves downvoting, because it gives an opportunity to point out 2 things I didn't.

1) The crime in question is not just that you acquired the content, but that you disseminated it. This is in sharp distinction from a hotel, in which the person renting the room is the perpetrator. It's not like there is some RICO statute that hotel owners routinely get pinned with when renting rooms out to shady people unless they are literally involved in RICO.

2) CASM is unique among crimes (in the USA) in that knowing of it and NOT reporting it is itself a crime. You cannot claim that you were frightened. So you now have to prove that you never decrypted it yourself, on top of evidence that you disseminated it.

This is not a position you want to be in legally.

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

#376

Post by root_axis »

CRConrad wrote: post #256
root_axis wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The data being stored as proof of work cannot be useful, otherwise it's not "work".

Hm... This is of course "arguing semantics", which some people for some reason seem to think is a trump[§] card to declare a counter-argument irrelevant, but still: Another way to look at that leads to the direct opposite: If it doesn't yield a useful result, it's not "work" but frivolous waste. ___ [§]: Eurgh.

I wouldn't say it's a semantic argument, it's just that the semantics are a bit overloaded. The stored data is useful as a "proof of work" in the cryptocurrency sense, but it's not useful in every other sense of the word, i.e. it's not used to represent meaningful information like like text, application binaries, images, audio etc.

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

#377

Post by nverno »

ArneBab wrote: post #359
nverno wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is repeated throughout history, but more often than not consensus must tend towards the truth, otherwise human knowledge wouldnt have advanced so far. If the information is of real value (eg. farming techniques, technology, weapons) people are quite discerning. On the other hand, if it's essentially gossip, like twitter, the truth isn't particularly important but shock value is- it's more about social stan…

There were also times in history when technology and knowledge got lost in religious zealotry. Some of it we are only now trying to recover. We don’t know how much is still missing. If information is of real value — like vaccines — … do you see where I’m going?

The vast majority of Americans have multiple vaccinations. How many are required for school? Just because people are hesitant about a new vaccine for a year hardly proves a greater point- it is a long-term trend towards truth, not a straight line. Those dark times in history are notably high points in censorship as well.

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

#378

Post by iammisc »

CRConrad wrote: post #269
iammisc wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been incredibly interesting how the antivax movement has suddenly become a right wing thing after years of festering on the left (including not so long ago with our own VP). I mean... I used to live in Marin county, one of the bluest in the country and one of the least vaccinated. Then COVID comes around and suddenly everyone's pro-COVID-vax, but anti every other vax. Robert Kennedy JR was also instrumental in…

Doesn't all this just go to show that anti-vaxxery[§] is not really a partisan political issue in the first place? Plain old lunacy in itself is politically neutral. The distribution, some shades at some times being more popular on one side of the political spectrum only to sometimes migrate to the other or spread all over it... That seems to be influenced by fashion, by world events like COVID-19, etc, etc -- but ba…

I don't believe anti-vaxxing is a political issue, yes. WHile conservatives are maligned for being anti-vax, in reality, groups like Hispanics and Blacks (not historically conservative or republican in huge amounts) have the highest rates of unvaxxedness.

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

#379

Post by hamstergene »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #272
hamstergene wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How do you allow government to enforce one thing (block illegal drug sales) while simultaneously preventing it from enforcing another (censorship)?

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

#380

Post by noxer »

ogurechny wrote: post #353
noxer wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hurr durr [insert basic telegram hate here] hurr durr

I don't hate it, I've said it was a hoax since the first presentation (which was… drum roll… about rolling their own crypto — soon found to be accidentally or intentionally broken). You had to be mad to believe that literal Russian Zuckerberg, who had been known for behind-the-scenes compliance while keeping the facade of uncompromising struggle for freedom, was caring about you and your privacy. I doubt that anyone…

Complete nonsense, all of it and completely irrelevant if used as an alternative to reddit none of that crypto/security/privacy nonsense maters at all. You have zero of that on reddit or FB or any other social media and its completely useless anyway for public communities who aren't trying to do anything illegal.

The thread is about a place where your "offensive" community can be hosted without the owner overlords coming an declare it a hate-group, in case you missed that.

Post reply on HN