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

431–440 of 443 posts

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

#431

Post by noxer »

h_anna_h wrote: post #365
noxer wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete nonsense. If you voluntarily agree to not leak secrets and do so anyway its not protected under free speech. You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law.

> If you voluntarily agree to not leak secrets and do so anyway its not protected under free speech Of course it is. Anyway, I mentioned more cases where there is no voluntarily agreement. > You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law. You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.

>You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.

Name the case. The burden of proof lies with you if you clame people get jailed for speech.

I posted a case from Germany. So if you have one from the US post it. No one in the thread could post one so far.

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

#432

Post by haroldp »

gilrain wrote: post #350
haroldp wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same question, but for the telephone.

Are you under the impression that phone calls are open season or something? There are tons of laws regulating what you can and can’t do on the phone.

What is an example of something that is legal to do in person, but illegal to do on a telephone call?

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

#433

Post by meinheld111 »

kafkaIncarnate wrote: post #152
ogurechny wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting, I don't remember seeing more than trace amounts of “nazi/fascist material” there at all. Sure, someone has probably thought that the world needs another copy of Mein Kampf, or has had a real important story of how Jews did 9/11, and maybe these freesites are still (partially) available after a decade or so (I am not at all bothered to check, to be honest), but general amount of such loonies has d…

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...

The nsa intercepts everything so naturally there’s something illegal among it

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

#434

Post by meinheld111 »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #408
cgtzczykldpq wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freenet's default feature is HTML sites - just like the regular web but fully hosted on Freenet and only accessible through it. The content of those sites is whatever their authors want it to be :) Further, dynamic applications such as forums are also available. Here's a list of apps built on top of Freenet: https://github.com/freenet/wiki/wiki/Projects Freenet needs UDP so it likely won't work on Tails as Tails tunn…

> The content of those sites is whatever their authors want it to be :) A network vending child pornography should not be happy about this. This should be a terrifying warning to you. Unfortunately you don't see it as a genuine problem, so you explain it away.

for a society to have freedom of speech there absolutely has to be a „safe“ way to host csam.

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

#435

Post by ArneBab »

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #409
cgtzczykldpq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freenet development is NOT dead! :) I have been contributing for ~ 12 years and now have acquired long-term funding (independent of Freenet's own funding!) to continue my contributions in a more intense fashion. The core network which serves static HTML sites + audio/video is stable and usable. It has a bunch of reliable long-term contributors working on it. Hence development on my personal side is focused on polishi…

> Luckily, Freenet did that right (even though it was the first anti-censorship + privacy network!) This isn't even close to true. There are many networks that predate you, provide real anonymity, and still remove the child pornography that would otherwise taint them and their maintainers. You just play games with the definition of censorship. When people tell you "you shouldn't be the vendor of the sexual abuse of c…

If you had read what the poster said you’d know that they are fixing the problem. And already did a lot to fix it.

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

#436

Post by h_anna_h »

CRConrad wrote: post #372
h_anna_h wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, rather, it asks from you to assume good faith from me.

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

#437

Post by h_anna_h »

CRConrad wrote: post #371
h_anna_h wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These are not really corner cases but whatever man, you believe what you want.

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

#438

Post by h_anna_h »

noxer wrote: post #431
h_anna_h wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you voluntarily agree to not leak secrets and do so anyway its not protected under free speech Of course it is. Anyway, I mentioned more cases where there is no voluntarily agreement. > You also dont get jailed for speech but for the act of breaching some agreement or other law. You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech.

>You can claim that for everyone who got jailed for speech. Name the case. The burden of proof lies with you if you clame people get jailed for speech. I posted a case from Germany. So if you have one from the US post it. No one in the thread could post one so far.

> No one in the thread could post one so far.

This is false, I posted this before:

> Just look at all these people who went to jail for crimes related to illegal numbers (eg. piracy). Or people like Mildred Gillars. Or the various whistleblowers.

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

#439

Post by bananamerica »

didjathinkmess wrote: post #387
bananamerica wrote: post #263

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

Just because I don't agree with Nazis who want to take my guns away, doesn't mean I want to censor them. It's much more useful to engage with them and get into an open discussion. I stand up for their right to say whatever they like because it's a foundational human right. Think old ACLU or NPR before they went full authoritarian and now fully embrace censorship. If the question is WHO to censor, I've always thought…

That's nice theory. In practice, however, I'd like to see you try to engage them (as you put it), and have a nice, civil, productive exchange with white supremacists.

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

#440

Post by CRConrad »

h_anna_h wrote: post #436
CRConrad wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

No, rather, it asks from you to assume good faith from me.

You don't explicitly ask that of everyone you reply to in every one of your replies, do you? So asking it specifically of me strongly implies that you didn't think I did.
Post reply on HN