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

421–430 of 443 posts

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

#421

Post by robertlagrant »

brokenmachine wrote: post #417
robertlagrant wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So call me a hater if you like. I'd probably call it tribalism? 20th century had quite a lot of poorer people killing richer people in the name of same.

Yes, I'm in the 99.999999% population tribe. The billionaires are clearly a hostile, rival tribe stealing our resources.

No, tribalistic thinking should go the way of the dodo. There's no "us".

There are just people, who can be convinced to do unspeakable things by media over a long period gradually activating their vestigial tribalism.

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

#422

Post by ArneBab »

ArneBab wrote: post #368
xvilka wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would it be impossible to run Java on low performance machines? In some abstract case - yes, it's possible. In many concrete cases, including I2P, Java-written code is quite resources-consuming for anything close to the router hardware.

In the concrete case, Freenet runs quite well on a Pi3. Just do not activate the Sone- and WoT-plugin (they are quite resource-hungry).

(and already with a Pi4, those resource-hungry plugins are no problem anymore)

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

#423

Post by ArneBab »

commoner wrote: post #403
ArneBab wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you are not safe to discuss anything on most Chinese smartphones regardless of the App, because common input methods in China (optimized software keyboards) send all your keystrokes to their servers. Freenet actually warns you about that during installation.

There are ways around that. For example, users can switch to a third-party keyboard, such as TRIME: https://github.com/osfans/trime In any case, using Freenet is safer than using a platform that is actively monitored by the government and linked to the user's identity.

Freenet currently takes the simpler route of suggesting to use the phones' IME (because that isn’t already proven to send all keystrokes).

It is likely that using Freenet in opennet-mode can get you on a watchlist — but you’re already on that if you wrote here.

There have not been report of actual tracking of Freenet in pure friend-to-friend mode, but there are too few people using it exclusively in that mode to be sure.

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

#424

Post by ArneBab »

paulsutter wrote: post #402
ArneBab wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what Freenet provides, because it is needed to prevent censorship by spamming. Along with pseudonymity that prevents people from pressuring you into voting as they wish.

Web of trust is rudimentary, something closer to pagerank is needed and that would rely on up/down votes which also need to be signed

What would be closer to pagerank?

Freenet ranks others by their distance to you and weights their votes from that before aggregating them.

And the up- and down-votes in the Web of trust are signed, because that is what happens automatically if you upload something under your key in Freenet.

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

#425

Post by ArneBab »

Hyolobrika wrote: post #412
nverno wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would go further. I would say that people should be allowed to make up their own mind without unjust interference (i.e. censorship (such as shadow-banning) and artificial manipulation of visibility (such as putting 'fact-checks' in prominent positions)) regardless of whether someone in a position of authority (whether elected into government, bought into the board of directors or shareholders of some company, or ju…

I would go even further and say that people should be able (in practical life) to choose their own moderators to filter and curate content. And know that they work for them, not for some third party.

In today's media visibility is massively skewed by the platform's interest of "engagement" — which too often means enragement. That’s how fake news spread so fast (also in ad-click-financed newspapers, by the way).

They aren’t only exploiting human psyche, but also the proprietary, centrally controlled algorithms that drive social networks and the ad-financing of newsrooms.

If you log out of Youtube and then watch a talk about Java development, and then the Youtube algorithm suggests alt-right content in the auto-play-list, then something is wrong with the algorithm.

It is ironic that platforms that send the fake news your way in the first place then put a fact check underneath.

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

#426

Post by ArneBab »

mhitza wrote: post #361
ArneBab wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> way back Maybe you should try again. It is quite a different experience nowadays (if you just use what you see and don’t go digging for stuff to get angry about — if you do the latter, you’ll also find "the internet" to be a place full of disgusting evil).

Happy to hear that new user experience is different nowadays, and also the fact that there's time and money invested into continued Freenet development (as I've seen in other comments). Maybe I'll give it a go next time when I muck around with anonymous P2P setups and protocols, until I get frustrated with the UX/DX, as always, and give up.

That would be great — I’d love to welcome you to Freenet, where no one can watch you read!

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

#427

Post by ArneBab »

EGreg wrote: post #338
ArneBab wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the points you note here are advantages of maidsafe over Freenet — except maybe the later crypto primitives (though these aren’t necessarily safer). But your link has one important point: "Freenet…is more a exchange and communication system instead [of] a data management system as Maidsafe". The goal of Freenet is censorship resistant communication . That is its focus and the origin of almost all its features…

Why don't you consider them advantages?

I’ll go through them:

- it splits data into chunks, encrypts it end to end → same as Freenet.

- uses a Kademlia DHT which removes the IP addresses after the first hop so no one can find all the nodes → same for Freenet, except that Freenet has many additional privacy protections in the protocol and uses node-locations on a ring like Chord, but with an inferred small word structure that allows efficient routing without the need to be able to connect to anyone but your direct peers.

- has consensus about the files and their evolution → Freenet has signed, user-controlled keyspaces, so no consensus is needed. Lifetime is given by access (what people access is kept alive) without actually having to track accesses, which is much safer for privacy than a consensus algorithm.

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

#428

Post by ArneBab »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #406
cgtzczykldpq wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If y'all only try to see if there is CSAM and then uninstall when you succeed, then of course the CSAM percentage will become high because only the CSAM perverts do not leave! So instead keep using it and actually put the other content onto it yourself! Hosting on Freenet is free and easy, you just upload a site and post it to FMS and it will be online for many years if people keep accessing it. You don't need any se…

I have no ethical obligation to move my assets onto a corrupt network in order to reduce the percentage of illegal material there, no. This is a ridiculous position. The network is flawed. It's not hard to provide anonymity and yet still be able to remove child pornography. Stop being an apologist for a network that delivers child pornography. Absolutely nothing makes this unfixable except the creators' dedication to…

You should investigate how this changes with the Web Of Trust plugin and FMS — both have been in use for more than a decade.

Both provide user-controlled moderation. They make it your responsibility as user not to boost people who post content you disagree with. And if it isn’t seen, it disappears automatically from Freenet, just as it does with a caching proxy.

Both are game-changers, and if it weren’t for them, I would have a hard time using Freenet.

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

#429

Post by ArneBab »

pnathan wrote: post #411
cgtzczykldpq wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If y'all only try to see if there is CSAM and then uninstall when you succeed, then of course the CSAM percentage will become high because only the CSAM perverts do not leave! So instead keep using it and actually put the other content onto it yourself! Hosting on Freenet is free and easy, you just upload a site and post it to FMS and it will be online for many years if people keep accessing it. You don't need any se…

Honestly, both times I wanted to see what was there. It provided no material benefit over, say, tilde.town, with added (1) legal risk (CSAM) and (2) ethical risk (providing some hosting to CSAM). There's this thing where a certain level of censorship resistance and free speech seems to yield some very horrible things. I don't even want to remark on the US law (first amendment rights, legal analysis) here, just focusi…

To be consistent with that argument, you also need to oppose WhatsApp groups on ethical grounds. Do you?

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

#430

Post by noxer »

CRConrad wrote: post #354
noxer wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name a single place and the law that is remotely comparable to the 1st amendment. It doesn't exist. There are some analogue yes but they all have exceptions like the one mentioned above where arbitrary the holocaust is excluded or certain other topic are excluded. Or the free speech only applies if your speech is considered satire or has some arctic value. etc. etc. >but then the US has such exceptions too, and thus…

Seems I don't need to contradict you: > No, it does not the fist amendment is very clear and short enough to not have any loopholes in there. > ... > Similarly if you order a person to kill someone and do so with your voice trough the act of speaking, you are committing a crime. You've already done it for me.

>This just shows the lack of understand what free speech means.
Post reply on HN