Is there an uncensored intetnet, because i dont think there is. if there is any, it can be turned off because its being routed on the censored net wrapped in encryption.
that being said, that makes me pretty interested in this talk. outside of hacking sattelites and such things and/or infra i really dont see any opportunities to break free of the will of corporations as they can simply pay infra providers to do their bidding.
I dont think software can solve all problems because internet exists essentially as informaiton transported over infrastructure. the software surely helps enable that but its a helper not the actual network.
It's not black and white though. There's a scale from "easy to censor without collateral damage" to "need to take the whole nation offline to suppress information flow".
And there is a scale from "trivial to circumvent, if only (you know) you want to" to something like "need to be very tech-savy and use custom hardware"
As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.
OTOH, third world or dictatorships won’t blink when it comes to turning off an entire country - example is Tanzania in the recent election.. are there solutions for communication when international links are cut? A lan like solution scaled to cities or an entire country that is disconnected from the rest of the world?
You can receive data over radio waves, which would be pretty hard to block country-wide I think. Sending data would be a bit trickier without being caught.
this does require quite some expertise. as u noted sending can be triangulated. Also because this sending issue, it wouldnt really be an internet since only few parties would have the resources for mobile or ship-based transmitting systems that are harder to pin down or stop
If things get that bad, you make friends in an “unfriendly” country and have them beam in news and resources to you, which you distribute by sneakernet (or even paper). At that point you’re squarely in the territory of latent revolution, as sitting at home is no guarantee that the secret police won’t come for you anyways.
To be fair, those are usually cases where the reason they turned off the internet is entirely unrelated to anyone doing something questionable, and more about personal political whims as security theater. As long as you keep the bribes flowing to the dictatorship, you aren't at risk of being shut down for what you're doing.
US corporations have always had these kinds of relationships with foreign governments. If a given government won't accept bribes the CIA will work to overthrow them, financing and puppeting "democratic" groups to that end.
Dark? That's just business as usual in a large chunk of the world, across every industry. Ask any company with a large, multi-continent presence and you'll get stories for days about this kind of stuff.
Can the dictator turn off the power? Turn off the phones? Turn off the internet? Close the ports of entry? Hold food hostage? Hold your shipment hostage? Stop fuel imports, production, and distribution? Nationalize anything and potentially everything? Run off or genocide entire ethnic groups? Yeah. And it happens often enough that examples are easily found of most of these (note: turning off power and stopping fuel imports are possible, but would simply piss people off, so it's usually bad politics).
Not sure what's dark about how the world works. Doesn't make it right or just, but that doesn't mean it can't be how things are.
> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut
There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases.
A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest.
In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP. It's already a self-building network. The hard part is how you incentivise transit nodes. Currently that's what ISPs and backbones provide. They are incentivised to interconnect because that's their core business model. So a truly decentralized Internet requires a decentralized incentive system.
This would enable circumvention, but it's also pretty easy to triangulate radio signals, so it's fairly easy for a belligerent organization to track that someone is sending something.
> In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP.
I'm sorry, that just wrong. Gupta-Kumar capacity scaling law (2000) says that as you add participants, each participant gets less bandwidth, until it becomes impractical. Imagine a room with 10 people talking in it. Easy. Now imagine 10,000. Hard to have a conversation if it's still all ad-hoc.
Someone ends up having to act as a hub. The more you gear for that job, the easier you are to target, and the more worth it it is to target you.
Whatever you are trying to accomplish, you have to remember that all tech is predisposed on a functioning society with cooperative people to move your packets from A to B.
Tech cannot solve the problem of Trust. Quite the opposite. It amplifies to immense degrees. In short, if you're looking for tech to save you because your Government is doing something shady, you're at the wrong level. Tackle the government.
i don't think anyone with enough money for shootin clusters of sattelites into orbit will be a free open internet builder. ofc thats an assumption. This network of sattelites would also need to join in and coordinate with other stuff up there, as far as i can tell its pretty crowded and theres collision risks etc.
It’s only censorship when a democratic government does it. When an unelected businessman with no oversight and more power than most counties does it isles just property rights.
A lot of people say this unironically about Facebook/Youtube/other social media. As long as it's in private hands, they're apparently free to manipulate information and restrict selected users however they want, regardless of how enmeshed they are in everybody's life.
In particular, a lot of people say this about major social media platforms when they are censoring content the speaker things is genuinely bad; and then call for government regulation of those platforms in order to prevent them from censoring content the speaker likes and thinks is important. And even if the government did just nationalize Facebook, the fact that it's no longer a private company doesn't remove the political component of the decision - people argue and vote on what they want the government to do, and then sometimes a court rules that it's unconstitutional for the democratically-elected government to do the thing it wants to do.
As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.
The whole country of France went offline? When did that happen?
Soon. Because of the protests again the government, the government ordered the ISPs to set up a nationwide block that the government can enable at the flick of a switch. See here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50229861
It didn't. They are probably referring either to Quad9 being ordered to block resolving certain hosts (and therefore deciding to not offer service in france) or the french prime minister sending a notice to ISPs to prepare DNS blocks for twitter, facebook, etc.
In both cases this is not taking the whole country offline, and for both of them you can easily bypass the "block" by using any other DNS provider. You don't even need VPN/TOR or anything else complicated.
I've been reading about the early history of the Internet.
The first ARPANET link to the United Kingdom required an exception to UK law. The traditional interpretation was that the state telecom monopoly (the General Post Office) had a monopoly on data transport. It was assumed that national governments have an absolute sovereign right to inspect data packets at the border, just like they do mail and parcels. That includes searches and seizures of foreign propaganda, material illegal under domestic law, etc.
> In early 1971 Larry proposed to break the circuit and connect in the NPL
network to the ARPAnet. Unfortunately for that plan (but not for me), at this time the British government was trying to get the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC governments, particularly France, were in any case suspicious of U.K. links with the United States. It was therefore politically impossible for NPL to be linked directly to a U.S. defense project. [1]
But the Internet was an experimental network. An exception could be made. Everyone would pretend that they were inside the United States legally speaking. This sort of worked when everyone was an academic restricted by network access policies of their institutions.
> I set up a Governing Committee, with the funding partners on it: Ann Letts represented the BPO, Donald Davies represented the NPL, and I was the Chair. Because of the questionable legality of what we were doing, all proposed users had to be approved individually. I put in security procedures so that all users had to log-in, with a password, on our relay.
[2]
This is related to the protocol wars of the 1980s. The X.25 protocol that was supported by all the established telecoms providers, included mechanisms for packet authority, automatic packet billing, and political boundary packet inspection mechanisms. [3]
X.25 was decried as too centralized, too complex, and too centred around the interests of the established telecoms. (Which it was.) TCP was better for both technical and political reasons. But the Protocol Wars were not a permanent victory. It was a wonderful moment in world history but the underlying tensions have resurfaced.
i think tech ceos might also have benefit from uncensored internet because they can build more accurate profiles of the masses to target their products etc.
the point is that people can still use the internet. u dont need cloudflare to use the internet they can be down forever and people will still have internet. they shut down access to services _on_ the internet.
it might feel like the internet is off depending on which services, but you can still find eachother and use internet if these services are down aslong as ISP networks and core routes/switches still work. if you have an IP,.and your friend has an IP and the network in between routes those,.that is the internet. If you host a website on that IP, that is a service _on_ the internet..
Technically true and practically irrelevant. Unclear if you’re trolling on purpose.
They should be blocking only “illegal” streams. What they’re actually doing is blocking access to big chunks of the Internet, which contain many sites completely unrelated to the streams but that many people use regularly.
Every time there’s a football game? At least that I’m hearing in the case of Spain. No, they don’t throw a switch, but they turn off enough CDNs to effectively turn off the internet.
Again, no personal experience, but have heard enough from folks here to believe it.
Except they're not taking the whole country offline. AFAIK even simple VPNs work without issue. Iran took the whole country offline, because their country barely functions, and still some people managed an external connection.
They managed the external connection because they were being provided with one by outside nations trying to topple the government. They were promptly arrested and the "protests" fizzled out. Trump then bombed them anyway.
I absolutely agree, and it isn't even a scale, it's multi-dimensional. There are many different little problems that the internet solves, and they could also be solved with many different little alternatives.
this is an interesting take. you are right a lot of stuff currently solved by internet can be done differently to the same effect. didnt think of that at all but ofc once you have a tool ull start applying it to lots of problems even if its not strictly needed.
cant you just disable resedential and non critical connections? ISPs etc. know whos who right? no need to take the nation offline. only the people in it (civilians, medium/small businesses etc)
u could likely also readonable tell if someone would be enabling others via their access without even inspecting the actual traffic
Russia is trying that (white lists) and it's proving costly enough that even they have to back off. They'll probably get there eventually but it requires serious investment of money and time and inevitably hampers the economy.
Part of the reason is data centers getting droned lately, which also happens to hurt traffic scanning capacity. As those servers get more decentralized or hidden in bunkers, Russia is likely going to move towards white lists again.
interesting thanks. i guess its a drastic measure, which costs a lot, so there would be some potential tippingpoint in which the risks to the censors or the costs they are racking up by not doing it outweighs the costs of cutting it all off. Also ofcourse, 'they' need their populations somewhat with them. if an entire nation stands up you have a revolution, so maybe its a balancing act to prevent that. cut it here n there but keep the main perception its all temporary or localized etc
I sometimes think mid to end of 90s was peak freedom. Never before had there been so much mostly uncensored world wide communication. Unfortunately most likely there never ever will be
again.
I would argue that.. despite much greater attempts at control, the internet is much more wild now. Not because it is not being surveilled, monitored, botted, manipulated or any combination of those, but because the pace of change is getting a little hard to keep up with.. not just by orgs and govs ( they normally struggle with those ), but by even by above average humans. I miss the 90s, but the feels are the same now man ( minus the hope;p ).
Fuck man, even if you watch early apprentice tv show, it is just different. I initially just thought it was just nostalgia ( I briefly got into old arcade games and VF2 didn't age that well ), but man.. even the stupid reality shows were better.
There was, once, but that has decayed rapidly alongside the centralization of the Internet. There are very few websites people even use nowadays, and many of them block legal expressions due to ideological and economic pressures. Payment processors and banks regularly restrict businesses and individuals from legal commercial activities, examples are Pornhub/MindGeek, Steam, and firearm dealers.
There is also now a precedent for T1 ISPs to block whatever legal websites they wish, and there is little recourse to be had there either. Not to mention arbitrary legal pressure for ISPs is also precedent now due to Judge Katherine Polk Failla.
On top of that, several EU countries have been using DNS blocks to prevent piracy and access to “bad” websites for ages, which has further been eroding the Big-I Internet into various separate internets.
Even building your own internet, say over wireless is easily detected and jammed.
About the only thing that could save us (though likely cause so many new problems we won't feel saved) is some kind of more sci-fi technology involving the non-locality of the universe for devices to communicate (not even talking about FTL communication, just different topologies within universal limits).
It really depends on what ypu are dealing with - if you are worried about communication being too centralized and monopolized, it might be a good idea to start building and alternative. Doing that might avoid the situation getting worse, slow it down or even reverse the trend.
If you are at a stage of "we shoot people on suspicion of them being against The Cause" then indeed, this will not help.
Still, if you are not at that stage, doing something is better than nothing.
Building an Alternative internet seems like a fools errand to me, like building an alternative road network. How are you going to reach a critical mass of users? What should stop the powers that control the old internet from taking off your network as soon as you beat the odds and gain popularity?
That's the thing though, no?
Depending on the use-case, do you >really< need a global network?
Don't get me wrong, an uncensorable and free internet for everyone is something I am very much for, but when we start to talk about nations limiting access while information has to flow, the question is not about mass-adoption anymore, but rather seeing the right tools reaching the right people.
A good example of this, imho, is the situation in Iran, when they cut off the internet. Some people were able to help themselves thanks to VPN-like apps and outside help, but that is not the majority of people.
this is the thing. an alternative internet is often suggested but whos gonna host a global switching network and put cables in the seasnfor that, and will it be allowed? what about cables in the ground or antenae everywhere to spread the network? it could simply be made illegal if it isnt already
I mean it would be amazing if one day access to the internet could be truly free (from costs for users, and censorship).
But as the world is now, it's not feasible in any sense yet.
The current internet is the best we have and it >can< work, we have to find solutions inside the current possibilities until tech is advanced, cheap and accessible enough for everyone interested to easily host their own infra.
But this is not easy, because what is the real goal... really?
It feels like most of the internet is about making money or involving money, even from the end users. Is there even something to fix when most people don't care enough to ditch knowingly harmful products like Facebook, TikTok, etc?
People in small towns and some cities in the Americas (North and South) have somewhat casually set up CJDNS an Reticulum networks. CJDNS had a lot of buzz in the 2010s.
In some places these mesh networks have nodes that offer paid gateways to the conventional internet.
Writing user-facing social/messaging applications that can work seamlessly between emergent mesh networks and the conventional internet, using cryptography based zero-knowledge tricks to preserve privacy, is necessary for these mesh networks to gain traction outside of just tech enthusiasts.
Some rural areas centered around some small towns have already done this but have kept it to themselves (understandably so).
You know, based on some people in China has learned building VPN/proxies, the best and cheap way to communicate under surveillance/censorship is to hide it in plain sight. In fact, that's how most these proxy software works.
So no, you don't need sci-fi technology. If you really want to communicate, context-coherent code words though bugged phone line should be enough, at least enough to arrange a meet up.
Also a interesting thought: maybe one day when human invented a device that could listen to quantum communications, we turn it on and ended up detecting a sea of encrypted conversations from another space-time perhaps even an universe just aligned with ours, and the device also experiences unexplained packet loss. That's what I call a plot of a sci-fi story :)
It's possible that any such technology would be too complicated to ensure a clean supply chain or have weaknesses that would allow it to be tracked or jammed. Real devices have some kind of engineering tradeoff.
But I generally think that trying to solve social problems with technology is a futile endeavor. Someone will always have violence on their side. And violence is the ultimate weakness.
but in the scifi mindset, what if you have an entangled ram bank with someone else. i write to mine and they can read it from theirs. that could create a sort of entangled ram bank mesh network network? (i know, maybe super stupid thought.)
It's not super stupid, but you'd have to find a quantum effect that actually does this while transferring information. If it transfers information it can't do so over the speed of light. As long as it follows that rule it may be possible, but if we had found anything like that yet we'd almost certainly be using it.
But it wasn't even a good question. Someone says "we need to make a website" and someone chimes in "could we do that with blockchain?" and you facepalm because that's just a buzzword they heard somewhere and the question has no meaning.
its not that bad, but i do wish ppl would add a comment on the downvote to show why. glad someone else dropped the link :D it might be easy to assume someone else can find such info but in reality people are so into different things that something obvious for one person can be a complete mystery to another. no clue what to search or read to even get there apart from starting physics and electronics courses from scratch and stumbling and bumlbing along to maybe someday find out why that downvote happend.
Glad some people do like to be smart rather than smug, and provide the link :)
Man, I don't think you've ever actually built free optical laser networks, they are kind of a pain in the ass and everyone is going to notice you've got one stuck up on a pole.
The next time its foggy or raining a tuned photon sensor to the spectrum that these devices run at will light up like a Christmas tree. If you're really intent on catching said people, you'd have drones flying around sprinkling light chaff and detecting where it detects optical scattering.
It seems relatively simple to me to detect fibers hanging around cities as soon as the network is bigger than two nerdy neighbors. Same for lasers and telescopes.
Reticulum. Encryption-required mesh-routing alternative to the IP stack. Can route over just about any medium (piggyback IP, Lora, WiFi, Bluetooth, USB, microwave P2P, anything). Also future-proofed with support for high-bandwidth persistent connections.
In the late aughts and early 2010s I and a few other people came up with the `darknet plan` aka `project meshnet` which was a subreddit and adjacent communities dedicated to creating a completely parallel internet using 802.11s mesh networks akin to the Athens and NYC meshes that span a huge portion of those metros.
The movement eventually got coopted by the CJDNS project and its fans. Instead of a completely separate internet they were advocating more of an overlay on top of the existing internet (because that didn't require solving interurban/intercontinental backhaul), which to my mind addresses essentially none of the problems we set out to solve, so I eventually lost interest.
But today we have things like LoRa and a greater hacker community around the ISM bands, which might be just what's needed. I have hope one day we can achieve global interconnectivity without rent-seeking ISPs.
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that the internet infrastructure has been government controlled since its inception. No cable laid under the sea between two nations can exist without the government approval and without the governments tapping into the link. IP addresses, MAC addresses, domain names, all managed by "super partes" international organizations swore to neutrality and fairness.
Unless you make your own physical network, it's trust all the way down
People can very practically exchange information without any government knowing the content. This was true from the beginning and is still true today.
The network infrastructure makes it possible to exchange privileged information and tunnel it through insecure channels. That is who we do banking on our phones while using the trains wifi (I would still not recommend to do that). Or generally establish VPN connection. Real data privacy is possible without a physical network.
I disagree with the parent, there is an uncensored net. Most people aren't interested in it for convenience but we should be quite happy it exists.
Yeah, MeshCore works impressively well but definitely there is a huge space for many nice improvements and novel use cases. Only time will tell if they will come MeshCore, the other LoRa mesh projects or something completely new. :)
- LoRa has actually quite a long range if done right (tens of km, upt to hundred+) so you would have to jam all that.
- This kind of jamming would be actually illegal, so you would have to make it legal first/tollerate it & expend non-trivial respurces to jam tiny repeaters from Aliexpress on random trees.
- The 868 MHz hand is actually used by a lot of IoT stuff like sensor networks, water/gas/electricity meter monitoring, some alarm systems - so if you did effectively jam the band, those things would break as well.
- Also if things went as far as active jamming being used, things might be heated up enough that whoever is running the mesh won't be playing by the reules as well - like, using a different, notmally ilegal fregvency or even triangulate and attack the jammers.
We've had enough people around here _accidentally_ jam the 868 MHz and each time it took months to figure out what was going on before meshtastic worked again..
Maybe you've been brought up in a culture (Sweden) which has no values except putting extreme importance on uniform spelling? People from other countries probably don't give it the same importance.
Before 2021 I hated typos etc but now I like seeing imperfect text in this new age. I wouldn't have considered it could be a bot (and I don't think it is) but it would certainly have worked on me (to what end, who knows..)
I think this this the perfect time to bring back old 90-00s webhosting, web rings and all and get them to be trendy and viral if some celebrity could pull people in and get them off this dirtyweb, bot-ridden and dead-internet-theoried. People have been veered hard into content creation and running their own little merchandise dropship etc businesses and all of the options are dinosaurs now.
Wordpress is getting its popularity nuked from orbit, there is definitely room for another "internet" that isn't walled garden social media app slop. Might even get kids into computers again.
But in this admin, economy and no startup capital and a million other things going on right now I don't think it will ever happen.
If you don't know, China runs censorship program against radio signals beginning from the cold war time and it's not officially stopped yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_China. Of course it's not blocking ionosphere level, but not that different than chaffing the air (at the receiver side).
yeah... I don't hope for a doomsday scenario but I do think it would be neat to use these HAM-based internet tech or whatever. Funny how tech becomes obsolete too like same thing but faster/slower. I still mess around with almost 20 year old computers for fun.
Censorship itself doesn't mean right or wrong, good or bad. It's very likely that you would censor your young kids from watching violent videos of real murders and would consider that a good thing, as an example.
Removing 'illegal' content is censorship in your example. If this is a good or bad thing depends on a great many considerations.
Most people prefer censored internet as long as it aligns with their political leaning. Maybe that wasn't the case 15 years ago but it's pretty much true nowadays. I myself consider this as a fact.
Not really. The past 10 years have seen huge masses of people mobilized worldwide for changing the status quo, and the status quo absolutely has changed as a result. Maybe not in the way you would have wanted, but it’s impossible to deny that the world in the past decade has changed dramatically.
Right - the only way we'll ever get a truly uncensored internet is if it's actually impossible to censor rather than some "gentlemen's agreement" that we'll censor this stuff for the Greater Good but not this other stuff.
I think it's more of a problem that the dividing lines in politics have shifted from left vs right within a liberal democratic framework, to liberal democracy vs populism. 15 years ago everyone was arguing within a democratic framework, partly by social norm and partly because before the internet became so ubiquitous there were many more gatekeepers to the spread of information making circulating disingenuous arguments harder. So if hardly anyone was breaking the rules you didn't need to debate who was breaking the rules of democracy or even what the rules were. E.g. JS Mill said 175 years ago that you couldn't have freedom of speech if you allowed harassment or bad faith arguments, but plenty of populists these days would define freedom of speech precisely in the terms of allowing harassment and by extension whatever the consequences of allowing harassment were are just what freedom looks like, and would then gaslight John Stuart Mill into believing he's the real authoritarian for not agreeing with them.
I agree. Interesting you’re being downvoted. I’ve been using Reddit for 16+ years and have watched it morph from a libertarian, centrist community dominated by developers and geeks, into a very left wing, violent, vehicle to export American political activism to the world. Redditors used to abhor censorship. People would practise debating all kinds of taboo topics because this is how we become wiser. Now just commenting on the wrong community will see you automatically banned from 30 of the largest subreddits.
They study this. [Gen Z is 10x more accepting of violence to suppress speech they object to compared to Boomers.](https://expression.fire.org/p/gen-z-is-10-times-more-accepti...) It seems history really does repeat. People are going to need to experience some authoritarianism to remember why we care so much about free speech.
A true test of one's desire for truly free and open society and speech is whether or not one's willing to stand up and fight for that "other" person's right to say something they hate.
I can't watch soccer highlights from X because all the mods on reddit are sure Elon's evil.
I expect there's no data to support this, but I really do think this is directly related to the age of the people responding, not their generation.
Boomers today would much rather squawk about threatening lawsuits or getting other people to do the work for them. The ones alive today feel confident in their command of the legal system to get what they want. During the 1960s, how many young Boomers and Silent Generation protested against the Civil Rights movement? Literal bombings and terrorism took place. One black family moving into Cicero, IL led to a violent mob of 4,000 people where it was also young Boomers that shouted and held up swastikas and eventually firebombed the building where the family was going to move in, leaving many other residents of the same building out on the street. -- https://allthatsinteresting.com/anti-civil-rights-movement
Yes, there were obviously not the same people protesting against the war in Vietnam. But, to their credit, Boomers used to turn out for protests back when they were 20.
If you asked Boomers this questions when they were 18-25, I expect their opinions would align pretty close to Gen Z in this survey.
Over 80% of real world politically motivated violence between 1990–2020 is from far-right actors. Left-wing violence has increased over the past 5 years, but is still completely dwarfed by right-wing violence.
As always, how you define the terms and conditions defines the outcome. If we take a broader view and include Mao, Stalin, Pot, Chavez etc this balance would come out very different.
The comment I replied to was a survey of internet users. So forgive me for thinking we might be talking about something closer to present day, where the right-wing is statistically more violent.
I’m well aware that Reddit doesn’t reflect reality. Most of society is not far left, chronically online, violent, and out of touch with reality.
The study you provide isn’t related to my comment but if you’d like to shoehorn it into future discussions you should at least read it first. That paper is widely criticised, and is, ironically, the kind of thing shared on Reddit. I’ll just copy and paste existing academic criticisms of the paper because I don’t really think you’re going to take the time to seek this out yourself.
1. Inconsistent data collection: The far-right data came from an established extremism database, while the far-left data had to be assembled separately because the database did not routinely track most far-left extremism. This creates a potential sampling bias, with no demonstrated guarantee that both sides received equally comprehensive coverage.
2. Serious numerical inconsistencies: The study counts 168 deaths from the Oklahoma City bombing but reports zero far-right bombing incidents. It also contains basic arithmetic errors, including percentages totalling 110%. These inconsistencies raise legitimate concerns about data quality and the reliability of the analysis.
3. Subjective ideological classifications: The study uses broad political definitions and includes homicides with weak evidence of ideological motivation. Without a fully accessible case-level audit trail, independent researchers cannot easily verify whether incidents were classified consistently or accurately.
4. Unsupported statistical conclusions: The author suggests far-left attacks are more likely to cause multiple fatalities, but the reported difference is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p ≈ 0.22). Drawing substantive conclusions from this difference is therefore questionable.
5. Disproportionate influence of one attack: The Oklahoma City bombing accounts for approximately 32% of all far-right fatalities in the study. Removing that single incident reduces the far-right-to-far-left fatality ratio from 6.7:1 to 4.6:1. The overall disparity remains, but its magnitude is significantly influenced by one exceptional event.
6. Selective historical timeframe: The study begins in 1990, excluding the 1960s–1980s, when far-left revolutionary movements were especially prominent in American domestic terrorism. This timeframe may be appropriate for the research question, but it makes broad claims about political violence across modern history misleading.
7. Conclusions beyond the evidence: The study examines ideologically motivated homicides, not political violence generally. It excludes non-fatal assaults, riots, intimidation, arson without fatalities and other violent offences. Using its findings to claim that the far-right is responsible for most actual violence is therefore a substantial and unjustified extrapolation.
Notably, the time frame used doesn’t reflect reality today, so it cannot be used to make normative claims about which ideology is more violent right now.
Correct it's not the best study, but it's better than your survey. Mostly since it comes from things that have actually happened which other studies can look at too.
Your points about the data from this study are valid if there weren't multiple other studies that reach the same conclusions. The data still rings true.
You kinda undermined your own original argument by wanting to include non-fatal crimes and violence from the 60s-80s, when I thought we were talking about modern trends and as such is why I picked 1990 onwards.
RE: 5, as you said... when you remove the huge statistical outlier right-wing violence still outpaces left-wing almost 4.6:1. You took proved the point, the right wing is far more violent.
RE: 7, more people die at the hands right-wingers than left. I count death as a higher degree of violence; whereas I've seen you consider a survey response to be violent... so we might be at very different ends of the agreement there.
Anyway, this has been fun and I think we've both reached as far I'm willing to care about. Have a good day.
The last time I saw research on this, they found that the median age of Redditors had dropped significantly over time. I suspect they have a newer and younger user base now. I still talk with older users from time to time and we believe our views on free speech and censorship have not changed significantly over time. However Reddit policy and moderation and majority opinion have changed a lot. They are far more accepting and willing to use censorship to realise political goals.
I think questions like this are so leading as to be useless, because they are presented in a way that don't trigger people to inspect their actual beliefs but rather their advertised beliefs. I could imagine a dozen ways to phrase to really bump that boomer contingent:
- [circa 2020] Do you think that the Black Lives Matter protests should be stopped by force?
- Do you think that a police officer should be able to physically prevent burning of the American flag?
You can be libertarian or centrist, you can not be both. Also developers and geeks are left wing fairly commonly. You write as if all geeks and developers were right or something. They are not.
> Gen Z is 10x more accepting of violence to suppress speech they object to compared to Boomers.
That is direct result of practicing taboo topics like violence and normalizing them. A lot of effort was put into making them more aggressive, so success. Mostly on the right, contrary to what you are trying to imply. The violence aggression and censorship are much more common there.
Violence exists up and down the political compass. The real debate is who is allowed to commit violence. The people, or the state. The status quo in most of the developed world is a state monopoly on violence.
The libertarian view is generally that the people should have the monopoly on violence.
> The violence and censorship on the left is the fault of the right?
No, I said that right is more violent then left. Consistently so. That is result of right trying to make right more violent and aggressive.
> It adds an additional dimension to the incorrect belief that libertarians must be left or right wing. Of course even this is a gross oversimplification of how humans think and vote.
One thing libertarians are decisively not is a center. They are not middle of the road group.
> My Polish dev team is very right right, but very libertarian.
Yes, libertarians happily and frequently merge with right including far right. That does not mean geeks and developers are universally on the right or libertarians. Some are and they tend to think they represent everyone.
Seems like this is a direct result of being more exposed to the internet. I'm not sure it's their fault when they are raised with ipads in their lap and multi-billion dollar corporations are shoving propaganda (both sides) down everyone's throat 24/7. I wonder if boomers and gen x would feel the same if they grew up the same way.
> It seems history really does repeat. People are going to need to experience some authoritarianism to remember why we care so much about free speech.
Not sure making people experience authoritarianism is the best way to make people remember why free speech is important. That seems more extreme than anything I've read on Reddit lately. Surely there are better solutions.
Not just Internet, but the most abhorrent version of it, aka algorithmic rage-bait machine the Web 2.0 had become.
I can see why people don't value free speech anymore, when the speech had become mostly astroturfing curated by algorithms.
Censorship is the wrong direction, but I see where it coming from emotionally, mass Internet today is an abomination. It wasn't like that when I discovered it.
To be clear I’m not suggesting that that is my preferred outcome. I’m worried that that is what this new generation will vote for. Then when they get it, they’ll realise what they lost, and they’ll have to fight to get it back again.
If you ever get the chance to go, please go! Especially if you're an American I recommend it. It is so different than any other conference I've ever been to in the US.
It doesn't have a lot of sales pitches, the technical content is top notch, and overall it is really fun and interesting to see what everybody is talking about and working on.
+1. I gave a talk in the eBPF room couple years ago and it was an awesome experience. Sometimes I get jaded being a professional software engineer but FOSDEM reminds me there’s a passionate community behind what we do and it’s great to reconnect with that community, and to share some knowledge with others.
I can only second that! And it is so relaxed, came and go whenever you want. No hassle to get tickets like for Congress. Of course you will queue - a lot, but consider it part of the experience.
Many communities also hold their yearly meetups & dinners there, often the only time people working together daily in the community see each other face to face :)
Yes, a few of our like-minded folks are looking to make the trip. We have been collecting travel tips ourselves. If you'd like to discuss FOSS/H or the trip itself, you might like to join us at: https://trustytech.zulipchat.com/join/75pg2qppqdtkndw6lmz3f3...
It's a very crowded conference at a university campus a few km outside the city centre, in not exactly my favourite city in Europe, but don't let that put you off. Roll up your sleeves and embrace it!
"Censorship" vs "Content moderation". You can't have online discussions without moderation, and that makes moderation some form of censorship. Thus you can't have online discussions without some form of censorship. Only difference is who is doing the censoring.
Of course you can have online discussion without moderation. In the most basic form: you publish on your site, I respond on mine. No moderator involved
And there are plenty of other differences besides "who", for example, "how".
It’s hard to take down sites on Tor. Usually impossible without the full weight of the FBI/CIA. I agree with the user above: we can do decentralised communication without censorship. Of course if you start from the faulty premise that online discourse needs to occur on one of a handful of censored platforms then that’s impossible.
Yes, but using Tor actually can have negative effects, such as buying illegal things, like drugs, and other things that you would want to be anonymous while buying...
Or like doing drugs, in other countries. If you make a system where you can be gay because the law can't touch it, you can also do drugs because the law can't touch it.
Yeah, that's not going to solve twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.
I'll make my position clear: many parties try to influence people, and quite a few of them do so with grave consequences. The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference. In the words of the article: it's already not "technology serving people", but rather "controlling" them.
If extreme right (or left) parties come to power, your freedom of speech and privacy is over. So it's either moderate moderation, or authoritarian moderation. And if it's up to me, it's not your choice.
So? If you can disengage from them, then your problem is solved.
> and also that a personal blog is not a solution for the vast majority.
It's not reasonable to presume that any specific thing is the best solution for the "vast majority". A healthy ecosystem arises when lots of people with different use cases and preferences build the optimal solutions for themselves; when people try to build universal solutions based on speculation about what's optimal for "the vast majority", that's when things start to go off the rails.
I think blogs are quite viable for many more people than are currently using them; on top of that, the emerging "fediverse" is increasingly replicating the UI and functionality of social media platforms without the centralized middlemen, and if amidst this rapidly diversifying set of options, some people still choose to use centralized social media, then that's their prerogative.
LOL
And here, folks, is the problem. This person is absolutely certain the far "right" is the problem ... not his beloved echo chamber censoring totalitarian "left".
An insane take. If you could read, ypu would have understood I'm not in favor of dictatorship nor censorship. Nor am I part of any echo chamber. Thou doth project too much, methinks.
> The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference
Correct, specifically, Elon removed widespread (and thoroughly documented) left wing interference on Twitter.
Unfortunately he did eventually add back his own (in the form of boosting his own account), but it's much freer than it was, and for whatever reason Zuck decided to follow suit.
The difference between censorship and moderation is the ability to realistically opt-out. Your friends might get mad at your for saying something, but you can choose your friends. Your community might not allow certain speech, but you generally get to choose the communities you are a part of. When the avenues where 99% of all communication go through "moderate" speech a certain way, that starts being censorship.
The difference is somewhat part who is doing the moderating, but it is far more important the ability to opt-out without significant negative impact.
Those sounds like largely unrelated concepts that just happen to overlap somewhat in practice, and are also very individual. As a private person I don't lose anything at all by not using social media, but if I owned a local pizza shop I'd be losing a ton of business by shunning hat avenue of advertisement.
Personally I think the most useful definition for censorship in the context discussed here is *government* censorship. A company offering a product isn't forcing you to engage with it, even if it is a benefit to do so. You cannot in any way evade the oversight of your government without risking criminal penalties. Amazon can deny you their services. The government can deny you your life and freedom.
It's why the 1st Amendment protects us again government control of speech and assembly, but not the censure and pressure of our peers.
The first amendment protects you from (mostly only direct) government retaliation on your speech. It does not define what is and isn't censorship. It doesn't even protect you from the government circumventing it by having most communications go through private avenues and then strong-arming those private entities to regulate speech. And it certainly doesn't protect you from private censorship from massive corporate entities that seemingly want to have a corporate autocracy.
That isn't the reality of moderation. Often moderation effectively acts as a form of censorship, and the two work together. Often moderators either power trip or misunderstand the situation and allow bad actors to abuse the rules to their advantage to have people shut out of the group.
This happens, btw, when there are the most rules and heavy-handed moderation. Places that are less moderated, this rarely happens because people will directly call this behaviour out and the moderators are only intervening on important stuff, e.g., threats of violence, illegal material, etc.
It's a universe-sized difference though. If a platform owner is doing it you can somply go to another platform. If a democratically elected goverment is doing it you can change the government though it's much harder. Or at least you can soothe yourself that it's being done for the benefit if the people as "the people" sees it. And if an authoritarian government is doing it, you are screwed.
Platforms naturally coalesce into near monopolies due to network effects. It's far easier to get rid of a government than it is to get rid of something like Youtube at this point.
> It's far easier to get rid of a government than it is to get rid of something like Youtube at this point.
the weird thing is that ironically, the people hurt by "youtube" (whatever "youtube" is, i'm not referring to youtube.com specifically) are often the ones both complaining and keeping it alive.
talking about youtube.com specifically, i've seen many complaints about it over the years, yet essentially only two guys (Linus Sebastian and Luke Lafreniere from Linus Media Group) are actually developing an alternative platform (https://www.floatplane.com/).
Essentially all other youtubers are still begging you in tears to "hit like, subscribe and ring that bell icon".
the same also happens for other platforms. it's so... weird ?
YouTube has a moat a mile wide and ten thousand feet deep because their product is insanely expensive to provide. Think about it: they let you upload a basically-unlimited amount of video and then they store it for you forever, for free.
Every competitor which has tried to do this has been eaten alive by the costs of bandwidth and storage, even if they have a deep-pocketed corporate backer (e.g. Twitch will not let you store unlimited VODs like YouTube will). Some companies have managed to flank YouTube and carve out a little niche like short-form video, but I think building an actual YouTube competitor with the features people demand (again, unlimited uploads and eternal storage, for free) is more-or-less impossible.
Didn't torrents solve this problem before Youtube was even invented? Also, it looks like Bilibili is going to expand internationally and they have a pretty good chance of eating Youtube's lunch.
I don’t really see how torrents solved this problem as so many seeders for any file could simply disappear. Not to mention, the significantly higher bandwidth costs of higher resolution video nowadays.
I’m less familiar with bilibili, but afaik it doesn’t do many of the revenue-sharing programs that YouTube does, so might have trouble attracting the same creators. They also have so far been pretty regional and so I’m not sure if we can use them as a sign of success yet.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis
Not too sure about that. It seems that stuff that is being demonized in democracies has a better approval rating among the people. For example absolute monarchy, as was exercised by Louis XIV.
Democracy sucks pretty hard. No one is held accountable for failure. Puppets with no real power get blamed and replaced to placate the population. If your pockets are deep enough you can buy laws.
Even we accept your premise that moderation is _some_ form of censorship, it still holds that we may not want _other_ or _all_ forms of censorship.
The last sentence of your comment, therefore, is manipulative. It's like saying "ice is a form of water, so you can't have drinks without water, and the only difference is who waters down your bourbon".
> Amidst the Internet shutdowns in Iran, as a technologist and member of the Iranian diaspora, I felt so much frustration, helplessness, and anger because I couldn’t do anything. After a few days of processing the initial shock, I was able to get to work and rage-code MoaV -- still ongoing at the time of writing -- which is a modular anti–internet censorship stack, able to run 10+ internet censorship circumvention tools on a small VPS or Raspberry Pi, with the goal of democratizing VPN provisioning. In the first two weeks, the project received tens of thousands of views on X and gained more than 200 stars on GitHub. This talk will be a case study of the project’s development and how to find these niche corners of the internet that can have massive social impact if done right. I’d like to invite the audience to reflect on the daily challenges faced by people in their countries or regions and how we can use our passion to vibe-code useful tools into existence.
We absolutely should not accept the way the internet has been going in modern times. I personally support initiatives like Reticulum/NomadNet, I2P, the Gemini protocol, etc, and think that we need more large-scale adoption of these types of networks as well as FOSS-based software just to maintain our freedom and keep some semblance of the old internet that I grew up loving in the 90s and 00s. The modern commercialized internet with its increasingly authoritarian government monitoring and control is counter-productive to liberty and individual freedom. Much love to the people who run FOSDEM and things like it, wish I could contribute more but I have a very busy schedule right now and not much time/money to travel to conventions and things. Anyway, mahalo and aloha.
The problem is there are so few uncensored places now that if you do make one you overnight become the sweary nasi/pedo/sexads bar because everything else is closed to them.
I think you can make an uncensored place if you have a "doing" place rather than an "entertainment" place.
Hackernews and Lesswrong (whatever you think of Lesswrong is irrelevant) seem to be free from chuds because they don't really appeal to them. The barrier to entry is too high. You have to care about topics that are boring to most people. Styleforum is like that too. I guess these places do have some moderation, but it seems much less intensive than what is required of reddit.
People seem upset that forums are gone, but if you want sanely/laxly moderated places, a forum seems a good call imo.
Part of the problem here is there are people that think any kind of censorship or moderation is wrong. I will not make any universal statement about the correctness of their position, but I will make a personal statement about their position. "They are fucking crazy".
Now, every once is a while you need a bit of fucking crazy to shock you out of the position you're in and reassess what position you should hold.
And by blocking certain people, you demonstrate to authorities that you can block anyone you want, and you will be held in contempt if you don't block anyone they want. As opposed to having no technical blocking capability.
>As opposed to having no technical blocking capability.
I mean, this may have worked a decade or two ago, but if you built modern software this way the same government is going to toss your ass in jail.
"Oh no, I built a murder machine that I can't stop, I guess you can't prosecute me for that, it's out of my control".
You can only get away with that now if you're a billion dollar AI company. Otherwise the judge is going to halt your efforts and prosecute you for contempt and stupidity.
on rdrama? that website's insane. i think its strategy to moderation is to make people ironically roleplay as their political opposition... which just seems to make everyone ironic edgelords. using rdrama makes me sad.
The internet is not what’s being censored. The three platforms that everyone on the internet uses exclusively are being censored.
People then say, well, they can still access other websites! Everyone has a web browser!
Unfortunately the way people disseminate those URLs is via the main censorship platforms, and there are dozens or hundreds of domain names that form URLs which you can’t DM on Discord or Instagram, for example.
The internet as we know it is controlled centrally by Meta and Google and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon - what is done at the network layer is largely irrelevant.
Well there's that thing with some countries blocking like all of Cloudflare during sportsball matches, since Cloudflare deliberately makes it impossible to block only whichever of their customers are serving unlicensed sportsball streams.
And I think the "Great Firewall" is still a thing.
And IIRC there's a couple times I've heard about countries taking down connectivity entirely during civil-war / major-unrest type incidents.
The big problem with the internet - which is very dysfunctional - is not censorship but propaganda. Everyone on the internet is selling something because that is the only way to pay for being on the internet.
If the people who pay for the internet are not the users then who will the internet serve? Not the users. and since corporations are known soully (as in that is their soul) what would you expect? If people who want to profit by targeting people with lies pay for the internet, is that censorship? Well sort of - but maybe worse.
We need a community internet task force. Lets start one. Request for comments.
RFC.. but we would have to agree what the ground rules are. I somehow suspect that those will be will be somewhat different ( kinda like some would argue against/for codes of conduct ) person to person. Still, if we could upend at least some of the underlying commercial interest or even the need to rely on advertising, it could be something.
One persons propaganda is another persons truth. Who are you or your task force to decide? The big problem with the internet is it gives dumb people access to each other.
Was this a serious comment? It made me realise that prior to the Internet, information flow was controlled by journalists or through peer reviewed papers and academic forums. People without advanced education would, generally, be limited to people in their local area.
I feel like it is generally a flippant but serious comment. A lot of social problems right now are caused by the fact that rather than having to travel to some large city for a meetup with people that have your particular neuroses, against the friction of well-adjusted people in the real world, now there is a fan club one click away that will ratify whatever fake illness/condition/problem that you have with no serious pushback. A LOT of personal, social, and political problems right now basically boil down to this.
This makes so much sense, this is why I like Hacker News, you get smart people from different political views all having interesting and healthy discussions.
That just points out that another real problem with the internet is that everyone's voice carries the same weight in ways it didn't used to. Every city has a few folks who believe aliens walk among us or otherwise wear tinfoil hats, but their message was limited to AM radio and cable access, and it was clear their content was not of the same journalistic level as the three major networks used to be - used to, because they've also changed. For example, there is conclusive, repeatable and verifiable evidence that the world is not flat, and it shouldn't be so easy to make convincing content that seems like it is.
"We"? I think you can look to the history of the 20th century for your soul mates. The kind of thinking you express in your comment always ends with wholesale murder and mass torturing of innocent people to death.
I tolerate the freedom of speech of neo-Nazis and cyberbullies because it's the same freedom of speech I use. but they're awful people. FOSDEM is free not to associate with them.
Not sure what your views on Destiny are, but he has a very excellent write-up on KiwiFarms specifically. It's from when Keffals weaponized the masses against them.
You don't have to like them, 4chan doesn't, but both of them just won for everyone worldwide by proving OFCOM has no right to police others outside their own country.
Awful people exist everywhere regardless of a site documenting what people willingly post. Because this allows others to see past the facade they get a lot of hate and unproven claims believed true. People prefer easy, which is fine, and don't typically verify leading to it being exploited by awful people.
> Not a single journalist seemed willing to do any homework beyond copying the work of other journalists before them. In the end, the “three suicides” caused by Kiwi Farms ended up being two misrepresentations and one uncomfirmed case.
Rights don't really matter at the international level - every country does what they can. OFCOM polices what it can, and doesn't police what it can't, but still tries to.
Destiny is apparently a terminally online full-time Twitch streamer who keeps getting caught doing child porn, child grooming, revenge porn and more. Not sure why we should listen to that guy.
The most comprehensive post I've seen on how quickly and totally the internet has changed over the last decade. As someone that got online in the early aughts and hung out on usenet and slashdot, the modern net is unrecognizable.
sensorship is unfortunately required in a world where unexperienced, uneducated, people with LEGITIMATE grievances start agitating for change, but whos efforts and energys will result in disaster and chaos, the coulor revolutions that happened in the middle east are absolute proof of this, decades of war, millions of casualties, and now no way out of the divisions.
I will very strongly advocate for completly uncensored physical libraries and peer to peer communication, but will resist 'platforming' ANYBODY, we dont need mass leaders, we need coaches and mentors, colaberators, companions, helpers, bosses, and a general reshaping of the hiarchical structure of human civilisation into something that is much more distributed in practice but unified in principal.
Tik Tok has trained a generation to want to self-censor and even worse to believe it's good to do so. The terrifying result may be to lose access to Tik Tok. Obey, self-censor giving up the entire idea of a democracy and freedom of expression, or you lose access to...stupid fluff.
I refuse to accept a censored Internet. Around the world, people are being silenced, monitored, and denied access to information.
Why now. Censorship in Russia, Iran and China has grown much more sophisticated
The twenty-sixth edition of FOSDEM will take place on Saturday 30th and Sunday 31st January 2027 at the usual location, ULB Campus Solbosch in Brussels.
Doing this axis of evil routine without even a token mention of censorship by "western" regimes, including your own, suggests a level of willful blindness or self-delusion. The censored internet has always been Eurasian, etc.
yeah and it looks to be scoped toward L2 / L3 censorship rather than broader socialmedia censorship. could be interesting. thanks for highlighting that.
It seems like "censored internet" will be the least of the worries when it comes to agent explosion. Even if your internet is free, how are you going to find it through the slop brigades generating and consuming the same "load bearing" crap. Even if you setup the oracle of the day, and no one stops you, how are you going to filter all the crap out to find it? And how will you afford it when everyone puts up pay gates to deal with the xplosion, leading to only the most valuable aislop being allowed on.
>The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it
I can put all kinds of words together that are legitimate uses of language, but that doesn't mean they mean anything or have any ground truth. Determining truth is massively more difficult than saying words.
As a parent you'll punish or otherwise teach your kids not to lie. Really quickly you'll find yourself punishing them for telling the truth, but not the full truth.
In the topic we're talking about proving something was a lie or bullshit, and proving a lie by omission gets really really hard, much harder than proving something is an outright lie.
> If it is distinguishable, can’t the machines do the distinguishing?
No? Just like they are not able to reliably tell if a piece of text was LLM written or not aside from by having access to the watermarking that some providers and models intentionally embed in the text.
> If crap is indistinguishable from substance, is it truly crap?
The crap is very very distinguishable. But there is so much of it we have to wade through, and it’s only getting worse.
The problem starts, when places like FOSDEM which originally where slightly left-leaning-anarchist (in a positive sense) start talking about censorship but only mention Russia, China and Iran. Maybe you should google for Jaques Baud, who is actually trapped in Brussels and invite him? Yes, yes, I know, Chinese LLMs and Tianamen square. Well, go and ask chatGPT for the crimes of presidents of the nothern area between Atlantic and Pacific... The problem is the global brainwash.
Digital Dissident
Someone living under an authoritarian regime (Russia Iran, China, Belarus, Myanmar
Why now. Censorship in Russia, Iran and China has grown much more sophisticated
tech evangelist from CIA ?
Dude, Zuckerberg is "I am CEO, bitch" of Facebook for 22 years since 2004, and civilization worldview (except a few places) is filtered and shaped through this seemingly benign "digital freedom" ether, and everyone has account tied to email and personal phone number and "People just submitted it." cos "They "trust me"", "Dumb fucks".
The authoritarian regime is what these 'Careless People' do every day, over whole world, and not just over few countries here and there, but you try very hard to brain wash everyone to believing that China or Russia is reason that you algorithmic feed is mentally retarded, or that France is going nuts. Fuck you.
I mean yes, it is likely there is no other probable outcome.
One of the big problems with the HN rugged individualist types is they think they'll get to have awesome unlimited power at their broke ass individual scale and that somehow people with millions or billions of dollars aren't going to use said power fully to their advantage while crushing anyone that stands in their way.
More so they think that power seeking type people and organizations will not quickly adopt this technology and spend massive amounts of money to entrench their legal position while weakening everyone else's rights.
As much as technology may free us, it seems even more probable that it will put us in the perfect cage as you say, or just completely end us all. There is no universal law that says technology cannot power scale way beyond humans ability to remain chemically stable. If we fly too close to the sun our wings will melt off.
The want for uncensored social media and without the surveillance is what many are discussing here.
The solution is an application framework that removes the 3rd party between any two users or groups of users. The client/server model can't do that. Other models can.
If Facebook/Instagram didn't meddle with users' conversations at scale, the social climate would be very different today. Not because the users can't think for themselves, but because they can.
These systems are not the internet, they run on top of the internet.
A distributed application model that provides for all of the cool applications we enjoy today without creating "moderation" hotspots for the "reddit mod" archetype, or the "whole of society" horse shit, is the solution that will give non-technical normal people, a systematically oppressed and marginalized demographic specifically, what they have been wanting for since 2018.
A major part of the freedom multi inter-network that freedom loving people want picture, are networks and inter-networks that can survive government-imposed internet kill switches, the topic of the "darknet plan" mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50235196
I remember r/darknetplan
There are a handful of projects and protocols that are about a fraction of the way to total freedom but they haven't been synthesized into something cohesive yet. What a functioning freedom oriented multi inter-network looks like is a whole different suite of protocols built with a mindful intent to shirk some anti-patterns and ossification of today's conventional web. One key objective is no more Cloudflare shit. inb4 "but how do we deal with bots", different protocol suite model, different "architecture".
About a healthy internet, if you care about that IPv6 with PCP is what you want. CGNAT kills peer to peer traffic, CGNAT is de facto censorship, upstream and at scale. If you care about the internet, then start proactively turning off IPv4 and shunning people who say that IPv4 is "okay". CGNAT can be kludged around with proxies because the internet is so fast but it requires a lot of overhead and leaves a huge vulnerability.
You're right about the latter. X is the most obvious example. That being said, what I've noticed is that there was a shift with the arrival of Instagram and smartphones. Social media used to be more symmetric (i.e. we're both friends, we're on the same level), but IG, which came with smartphones, shifted thing into an influenver vs follower regime, which is more akin to producer vs consumer. Influencers make high profile content which takes more time to produce and have lots of followers, whereas the masses passively consume content on their smartphone and their voices are largely irrelevant on those platforms.
Is there an uncensored intetnet, because i dont think there is. if there is any, it can be turned off because its being routed on the censored net wrapped in encryption.
that being said, that makes me pretty interested in this talk. outside of hacking sattelites and such things and/or infra i really dont see any opportunities to break free of the will of corporations as they can simply pay infra providers to do their bidding.
I dont think software can solve all problems because internet exists essentially as informaiton transported over infrastructure. the software surely helps enable that but its a helper not the actual network.
happy to learn otherwise from anyone here ofc :-)
It's not black and white though. There's a scale from "easy to censor without collateral damage" to "need to take the whole nation offline to suppress information flow".
And there is a scale from "trivial to circumvent, if only (you know) you want to" to something like "need to be very tech-savy and use custom hardware"
As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.
OTOH, third world or dictatorships won’t blink when it comes to turning off an entire country - example is Tanzania in the recent election.. are there solutions for communication when international links are cut? A lan like solution scaled to cities or an entire country that is disconnected from the rest of the world?
You can receive data over radio waves, which would be pretty hard to block country-wide I think. Sending data would be a bit trickier without being caught.
this does require quite some expertise. as u noted sending can be triangulated. Also because this sending issue, it wouldnt really be an internet since only few parties would have the resources for mobile or ship-based transmitting systems that are harder to pin down or stop
If things get that bad, you make friends in an “unfriendly” country and have them beam in news and resources to you, which you distribute by sneakernet (or even paper). At that point you’re squarely in the territory of latent revolution, as sitting at home is no guarantee that the secret police won’t come for you anyways.
To be fair, those are usually cases where the reason they turned off the internet is entirely unrelated to anyone doing something questionable, and more about personal political whims as security theater. As long as you keep the bribes flowing to the dictatorship, you aren't at risk of being shut down for what you're doing.
Wow that's fucking dark.
Does the tech industry still even see technology as a source for good in the world, or do we now see ourselves as the dictators' keys to power.
What future do we have if we have become totally cynical and Amoral?
US corporations have always had these kinds of relationships with foreign governments. If a given government won't accept bribes the CIA will work to overthrow them, financing and puppeting "democratic" groups to that end.
btw the US isn't the only country that does this
Dark? That's just business as usual in a large chunk of the world, across every industry. Ask any company with a large, multi-continent presence and you'll get stories for days about this kind of stuff.
Can the dictator turn off the power? Turn off the phones? Turn off the internet? Close the ports of entry? Hold food hostage? Hold your shipment hostage? Stop fuel imports, production, and distribution? Nationalize anything and potentially everything? Run off or genocide entire ethnic groups? Yeah. And it happens often enough that examples are easily found of most of these (note: turning off power and stopping fuel imports are possible, but would simply piss people off, so it's usually bad politics).
Not sure what's dark about how the world works. Doesn't make it right or just, but that doesn't mean it can't be how things are.
> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut
There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases.
A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest.
I'm glad you counted Spain and France as "third world or dictatorships"
> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut?
How far can you scale wireless mesh nets?
In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP. It's already a self-building network. The hard part is how you incentivise transit nodes. Currently that's what ISPs and backbones provide. They are incentivised to interconnect because that's their core business model. So a truly decentralized Internet requires a decentralized incentive system.
This would enable circumvention, but it's also pretty easy to triangulate radio signals, so it's fairly easy for a belligerent organization to track that someone is sending something.
> In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP.
I'm sorry, that just wrong. Gupta-Kumar capacity scaling law (2000) says that as you add participants, each participant gets less bandwidth, until it becomes impractical. Imagine a room with 10 people talking in it. Easy. Now imagine 10,000. Hard to have a conversation if it's still all ad-hoc.
You have to increase the width of the mesh.
Someone ends up having to act as a hub. The more you gear for that job, the easier you are to target, and the more worth it it is to target you.
Whatever you are trying to accomplish, you have to remember that all tech is predisposed on a functioning society with cooperative people to move your packets from A to B.
Tech cannot solve the problem of Trust. Quite the opposite. It amplifies to immense degrees. In short, if you're looking for tech to save you because your Government is doing something shady, you're at the wrong level. Tackle the government.
Sad, but inevitable.
Not the hub. A node in a mesh. Remove yourself from the mesh and traffic reroutes.
Now if you have too many leaches and not enough contributors then you get a problem, but that’s not the same as a single point of failure.
If operating a (even encrypted) wireless mesh net gets you gulag or death penalty, not very far.
People do illegal things all the time. The FBI can't even get very much of the dark web.
This is essentially the case for Starlink
On the one hand, yes. That's why possession of a starlink terminal can get you killed in Iran.
On the other hand, Ukrainians are finding out that someone else is in control of that starlink infra.
i don't think anyone with enough money for shootin clusters of sattelites into orbit will be a free open internet builder. ofc thats an assumption. This network of sattelites would also need to join in and coordinate with other stuff up there, as far as i can tell its pretty crowded and theres collision risks etc.
Except Starlink won't hesitate to censor you as well as the Ukrainians are discovering.
It’s only censorship when a democratic government does it. When an unelected businessman with no oversight and more power than most counties does it isles just property rights.
A lot of people say this unironically about Facebook/Youtube/other social media. As long as it's in private hands, they're apparently free to manipulate information and restrict selected users however they want, regardless of how enmeshed they are in everybody's life.
In particular, a lot of people say this about major social media platforms when they are censoring content the speaker things is genuinely bad; and then call for government regulation of those platforms in order to prevent them from censoring content the speaker likes and thinks is important. And even if the government did just nationalize Facebook, the fact that it's no longer a private company doesn't remove the political component of the decision - people argue and vote on what they want the government to do, and then sometimes a court rules that it's unconstitutional for the democratically-elected government to do the thing it wants to do.
As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.
The whole country of France went offline? When did that happen?
Soon. Because of the protests again the government, the government ordered the ISPs to set up a nationwide block that the government can enable at the flick of a switch. See here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50229861
It didn't. They are probably referring either to Quad9 being ordered to block resolving certain hosts (and therefore deciding to not offer service in france) or the french prime minister sending a notice to ISPs to prepare DNS blocks for twitter, facebook, etc.
In both cases this is not taking the whole country offline, and for both of them you can easily bypass the "block" by using any other DNS provider. You don't even need VPN/TOR or anything else complicated.
I've been reading about the early history of the Internet.
The first ARPANET link to the United Kingdom required an exception to UK law. The traditional interpretation was that the state telecom monopoly (the General Post Office) had a monopoly on data transport. It was assumed that national governments have an absolute sovereign right to inspect data packets at the border, just like they do mail and parcels. That includes searches and seizures of foreign propaganda, material illegal under domestic law, etc.
> In early 1971 Larry proposed to break the circuit and connect in the NPL network to the ARPAnet. Unfortunately for that plan (but not for me), at this time the British government was trying to get the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC governments, particularly France, were in any case suspicious of U.K. links with the United States. It was therefore politically impossible for NPL to be linked directly to a U.S. defense project. [1]
But the Internet was an experimental network. An exception could be made. Everyone would pretend that they were inside the United States legally speaking. This sort of worked when everyone was an academic restricted by network access policies of their institutions.
> I set up a Governing Committee, with the funding partners on it: Ann Letts represented the BPO, Donald Davies represented the NPL, and I was the Chair. Because of the questionable legality of what we were doing, all proposed users had to be approved individually. I put in security procedures so that all users had to log-in, with a password, on our relay.
[2]
This is related to the protocol wars of the 1980s. The X.25 protocol that was supported by all the established telecoms providers, included mechanisms for packet authority, automatic packet billing, and political boundary packet inspection mechanisms. [3]
X.25 was decried as too centralized, too complex, and too centred around the interests of the established telecoms. (Which it was.) TCP was better for both technical and political reasons. But the Protocol Wars were not a permanent victory. It was a wonderful moment in world history but the underlying tensions have resurfaced.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224386328_The_early...
[2] http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/darpa/internet-history.htm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War...
You can run tcp over ax.25 with a 20$ walkie talkie and a software modem btw. Loading the google search page takes about 30 minutes
The google login page is 3MiB of bloat to show a textbox and a button. I don't think that's a good indicator.
When on very bad connection, the only internet that works reasonably well is hacker news
Or bash.org :)
That died ages ago and it doesn't look like someone resurrected it. If they did, it would be a domain squatter anyway.
At this point, I worry about censorship of American Tech CEOs a lot more. Because it is both very real and deliberately destructive.
we could all start using huawei :').
i think tech ceos might also have benefit from uncensored internet because they can build more accurate profiles of the masses to target their products etc.
The disappointing aspect is how frequently censorious actions are initiated at the beck of private corporations or authoritarian motivations
What are you talking about? When have Spain, Italy and France cut their Internet?
[flagged]
I know the difference between blocking individual sites and every site hosted at Vercel or behind Cloudflare
the point is that people can still use the internet. u dont need cloudflare to use the internet they can be down forever and people will still have internet. they shut down access to services _on_ the internet.
it might feel like the internet is off depending on which services, but you can still find eachother and use internet if these services are down aslong as ISP networks and core routes/switches still work. if you have an IP,.and your friend has an IP and the network in between routes those,.that is the internet. If you host a website on that IP, that is a service _on_ the internet..
its distinct and an important distinction.
Technically true and practically irrelevant. Unclear if you’re trolling on purpose.
They should be blocking only “illegal” streams. What they’re actually doing is blocking access to big chunks of the Internet, which contain many sites completely unrelated to the streams but that many people use regularly.
Every time there’s a football game? At least that I’m hearing in the case of Spain. No, they don’t throw a switch, but they turn off enough CDNs to effectively turn off the internet.
Again, no personal experience, but have heard enough from folks here to believe it.
Some folks on internet are not representative of a nationwide issue...
They cut the whole country's internet when people are playing football, to make sure nobody is live pirating the football
This is your country. This is your country on intellectual property rights.
Yeah right, they also eat the dogs.
No, they don't eat the dogs but they do cut off the internet during football.
i missed this, can you point me in the right direction?
i want to read more
Except they're not taking the whole country offline. AFAIK even simple VPNs work without issue. Iran took the whole country offline, because their country barely functions, and still some people managed an external connection.
> Iran took the whole country offline, because their country barely functions
Iran took their whole country offline because they locked the country behind CGNAT - which is an ideal tech for offlining an entire nation.
They managed the external connection because they were being provided with one by outside nations trying to topple the government. They were promptly arrested and the "protests" fizzled out. Trump then bombed them anyway.
[dead]
I absolutely agree, and it isn't even a scale, it's multi-dimensional. There are many different little problems that the internet solves, and they could also be solved with many different little alternatives.
this is an interesting take. you are right a lot of stuff currently solved by internet can be done differently to the same effect. didnt think of that at all but ofc once you have a tool ull start applying it to lots of problems even if its not strictly needed.
cant you just disable resedential and non critical connections? ISPs etc. know whos who right? no need to take the nation offline. only the people in it (civilians, medium/small businesses etc)
u could likely also readonable tell if someone would be enabling others via their access without even inspecting the actual traffic
Russia is trying that (white lists) and it's proving costly enough that even they have to back off. They'll probably get there eventually but it requires serious investment of money and time and inevitably hampers the economy.
Part of the reason is data centers getting droned lately, which also happens to hurt traffic scanning capacity. As those servers get more decentralized or hidden in bunkers, Russia is likely going to move towards white lists again.
interesting thanks. i guess its a drastic measure, which costs a lot, so there would be some potential tippingpoint in which the risks to the censors or the costs they are racking up by not doing it outweighs the costs of cutting it all off. Also ofcourse, 'they' need their populations somewhat with them. if an entire nation stands up you have a revolution, so maybe its a balancing act to prevent that. cut it here n there but keep the main perception its all temporary or localized etc
I sometimes think mid to end of 90s was peak freedom. Never before had there been so much mostly uncensored world wide communication. Unfortunately most likely there never ever will be again.
I would argue that.. despite much greater attempts at control, the internet is much more wild now. Not because it is not being surveilled, monitored, botted, manipulated or any combination of those, but because the pace of change is getting a little hard to keep up with.. not just by orgs and govs ( they normally struggle with those ), but by even by above average humans. I miss the 90s, but the feels are the same now man ( minus the hope;p ).
Man, 90s hope was really peak!
I watched Hackers for the first time in decades recently. Maaaannnn what amazing times they were. Like cowboys exploring the west or something
Fuck man, even if you watch early apprentice tv show, it is just different. I initially just thought it was just nostalgia ( I briefly got into old arcade games and VF2 didn't age that well ), but man.. even the stupid reality shows were better.
[dead]
There was, once, but that has decayed rapidly alongside the centralization of the Internet. There are very few websites people even use nowadays, and many of them block legal expressions due to ideological and economic pressures. Payment processors and banks regularly restrict businesses and individuals from legal commercial activities, examples are Pornhub/MindGeek, Steam, and firearm dealers.
There is also now a precedent for T1 ISPs to block whatever legal websites they wish, and there is little recourse to be had there either. Not to mention arbitrary legal pressure for ISPs is also precedent now due to Judge Katherine Polk Failla.
On top of that, several EU countries have been using DNS blocks to prevent piracy and access to “bad” websites for ages, which has further been eroding the Big-I Internet into various separate internets.
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/isps-should-not-police...
https://torrentfreak.com/dns-resolver-quad9-will-leave-franc...
> informaiton transported over infrastructure
Even building your own internet, say over wireless is easily detected and jammed.
About the only thing that could save us (though likely cause so many new problems we won't feel saved) is some kind of more sci-fi technology involving the non-locality of the universe for devices to communicate (not even talking about FTL communication, just different topologies within universal limits).
It really depends on what ypu are dealing with - if you are worried about communication being too centralized and monopolized, it might be a good idea to start building and alternative. Doing that might avoid the situation getting worse, slow it down or even reverse the trend.
If you are at a stage of "we shoot people on suspicion of them being against The Cause" then indeed, this will not help.
Still, if you are not at that stage, doing something is better than nothing.
Building an Alternative internet seems like a fools errand to me, like building an alternative road network. How are you going to reach a critical mass of users? What should stop the powers that control the old internet from taking off your network as soon as you beat the odds and gain popularity?
That's the thing though, no? Depending on the use-case, do you >really< need a global network?
Don't get me wrong, an uncensorable and free internet for everyone is something I am very much for, but when we start to talk about nations limiting access while information has to flow, the question is not about mass-adoption anymore, but rather seeing the right tools reaching the right people.
A good example of this, imho, is the situation in Iran, when they cut off the internet. Some people were able to help themselves thanks to VPN-like apps and outside help, but that is not the majority of people.
this is the thing. an alternative internet is often suggested but whos gonna host a global switching network and put cables in the seasnfor that, and will it be allowed? what about cables in the ground or antenae everywhere to spread the network? it could simply be made illegal if it isnt already
I mean it would be amazing if one day access to the internet could be truly free (from costs for users, and censorship).
But as the world is now, it's not feasible in any sense yet.
The current internet is the best we have and it >can< work, we have to find solutions inside the current possibilities until tech is advanced, cheap and accessible enough for everyone interested to easily host their own infra.
But this is not easy, because what is the real goal... really?
It feels like most of the internet is about making money or involving money, even from the end users. Is there even something to fix when most people don't care enough to ditch knowingly harmful products like Facebook, TikTok, etc?
People in small towns and some cities in the Americas (North and South) have somewhat casually set up CJDNS an Reticulum networks. CJDNS had a lot of buzz in the 2010s.
In some places these mesh networks have nodes that offer paid gateways to the conventional internet.
Writing user-facing social/messaging applications that can work seamlessly between emergent mesh networks and the conventional internet, using cryptography based zero-knowledge tricks to preserve privacy, is necessary for these mesh networks to gain traction outside of just tech enthusiasts.
Some rural areas centered around some small towns have already done this but have kept it to themselves (understandably so).
> sci-fi technology
You know, based on some people in China has learned building VPN/proxies, the best and cheap way to communicate under surveillance/censorship is to hide it in plain sight. In fact, that's how most these proxy software works.
So no, you don't need sci-fi technology. If you really want to communicate, context-coherent code words though bugged phone line should be enough, at least enough to arrange a meet up.
Also a interesting thought: maybe one day when human invented a device that could listen to quantum communications, we turn it on and ended up detecting a sea of encrypted conversations from another space-time perhaps even an universe just aligned with ours, and the device also experiences unexplained packet loss. That's what I call a plot of a sci-fi story :)
It's possible that any such technology would be too complicated to ensure a clean supply chain or have weaknesses that would allow it to be tracked or jammed. Real devices have some kind of engineering tradeoff.
But I generally think that trying to solve social problems with technology is a futile endeavor. Someone will always have violence on their side. And violence is the ultimate weakness.
i like this idea. it does sound scifi, maybe quantum entanglement? i know nothing about this stuff tho :)
this got downvoted, ofc because i know nothing.
but in the scifi mindset, what if you have an entangled ram bank with someone else. i write to mine and they can read it from theirs. that could create a sort of entangled ram bank mesh network network? (i know, maybe super stupid thought.)
It's not super stupid, but you'd have to find a quantum effect that actually does this while transferring information. If it transfers information it can't do so over the speed of light. As long as it follows that rule it may be possible, but if we had found anything like that yet we'd almost certainly be using it.
But it wasn't even a good question. Someone says "we need to make a website" and someone chimes in "could we do that with blockchain?" and you facepalm because that's just a buzzword they heard somewhere and the question has no meaning.
its not that bad, but i do wish ppl would add a comment on the downvote to show why. glad someone else dropped the link :D it might be easy to assume someone else can find such info but in reality people are so into different things that something obvious for one person can be a complete mystery to another. no clue what to search or read to even get there apart from starting physics and electronics courses from scratch and stumbling and bumlbing along to maybe someday find out why that downvote happend.
Glad some people do like to be smart rather than smug, and provide the link :)
It gets downvoted because it's a common trope that is explicitly impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Hence one of the key points I stated that whatever effect cannot work FTL.
thank you, i wasnt aware this is interesting ^^
Or, hear me out, optical laser mesh
Very easy to detect and deal with, especially when you're talking about fixed positions like your home.
But impossible to detect if you aren't standing in the beam path. Or use fiber, and it's impossible to detect if you don't trip over the fiber.
Man, I don't think you've ever actually built free optical laser networks, they are kind of a pain in the ass and everyone is going to notice you've got one stuck up on a pole.
The next time its foggy or raining a tuned photon sensor to the spectrum that these devices run at will light up like a Christmas tree. If you're really intent on catching said people, you'd have drones flying around sprinkling light chaff and detecting where it detects optical scattering.
It seems relatively simple to me to detect fibers hanging around cities as soon as the network is bigger than two nerdy neighbors. Same for lasers and telescopes.
ud need tons of beams tho do maybe its easy enough to segment the network badly by finding bunches of them?
Reticulum. Encryption-required mesh-routing alternative to the IP stack. Can route over just about any medium (piggyback IP, Lora, WiFi, Bluetooth, USB, microwave P2P, anything). Also future-proofed with support for high-bandwidth persistent connections.
In the late aughts and early 2010s I and a few other people came up with the `darknet plan` aka `project meshnet` which was a subreddit and adjacent communities dedicated to creating a completely parallel internet using 802.11s mesh networks akin to the Athens and NYC meshes that span a huge portion of those metros.
The movement eventually got coopted by the CJDNS project and its fans. Instead of a completely separate internet they were advocating more of an overlay on top of the existing internet (because that didn't require solving interurban/intercontinental backhaul), which to my mind addresses essentially none of the problems we set out to solve, so I eventually lost interest.
But today we have things like LoRa and a greater hacker community around the ISM bands, which might be just what's needed. I have hope one day we can achieve global interconnectivity without rent-seeking ISPs.
People seem to be oblivious to the fact that the internet infrastructure has been government controlled since its inception. No cable laid under the sea between two nations can exist without the government approval and without the governments tapping into the link. IP addresses, MAC addresses, domain names, all managed by "super partes" international organizations swore to neutrality and fairness.
Unless you make your own physical network, it's trust all the way down
People can very practically exchange information without any government knowing the content. This was true from the beginning and is still true today.
The network infrastructure makes it possible to exchange privileged information and tunnel it through insecure channels. That is who we do banking on our phones while using the trains wifi (I would still not recommend to do that). Or generally establish VPN connection. Real data privacy is possible without a physical network.
I disagree with the parent, there is an uncensored net. Most people aren't interested in it for convenience but we should be quite happy it exists.
Trust... and encryption. That second one's quite important.
What about a solar powered mesh network build on commonly available LoRa chips and micro controllers ?
Does this exist already? Meshtastic doesn't do IP.
Sure does - MeshCore for example:
https://meshcore-analyzer.eu/#map
Quite active here in Czech Republic for example.
As for the IP protocol - maybe its too much overhead for this use case ?
MeshCore uses PKI and public key prefixes as addresses & for routing/repeating.
Did not know this, thanks for sharing.
Or Reticulum. Nomadnet over lora works pretty well.
Yeah, MeshCore works impressively well but definitely there is a huge space for many nice improvements and novel use cases. Only time will tell if they will come MeshCore, the other LoRa mesh projects or something completely new. :)
Who owns the spectrum?
In Europe it is using the 868 MHz ISM band with some duty cycle rules (maximu of 10% of every hour can be used for broadcasting).
In the US apparently 433 MHz is used instead.
These bands are trivial to jam should any adversary want.
Sure, but there are some issues with that:
- LoRa has actually quite a long range if done right (tens of km, upt to hundred+) so you would have to jam all that.
- This kind of jamming would be actually illegal, so you would have to make it legal first/tollerate it & expend non-trivial respurces to jam tiny repeaters from Aliexpress on random trees.
- The 868 MHz hand is actually used by a lot of IoT stuff like sensor networks, water/gas/electricity meter monitoring, some alarm systems - so if you did effectively jam the band, those things would break as well.
- Also if things went as far as active jamming being used, things might be heated up enough that whoever is running the mesh won't be playing by the reules as well - like, using a different, notmally ilegal fregvency or even triangulate and attack the jammers.
We've had enough people around here _accidentally_ jam the 868 MHz and each time it took months to figure out what was going on before meshtastic worked again..
Yeh; internet is just passing network traffic between each other
I am part of a Wireguard private VPN network with friends and family
But I mean we are almost all hardware/software engineers or office power user types familiar with VPN use
Just start generating shared keys amongst each other and go 'round swapping IP over signal and such
Like turn making key-share friends into real life Pokemon Go
The bulk of the people with skin in these companies are 55+ and excluding everyone younger
But the younger crowd outnumbers them
We could "meet the moment" and just stop using their services
It's not like a black hole will swallow humanity if we stop listening to an aging minority
Wireguard traffic is easy to detect and block apparently
Why is the prevalence of typos increasing in the past year or so? I don't mean to single you out; your comment was just a convenient example.
Do people (and AI bots) think this makes them seem more human? Or is it yet another symptom of civilization in decline?
Maybe you've been brought up in a culture (Sweden) which has no values except putting extreme importance on uniform spelling? People from other countries probably don't give it the same importance.
No. I'm in the US and this is a recent phenomenon.
The occasional typo has always existed and is fine. The new trend is a noticeable increase in occurrences.
It’s a sign of authentic, non-LLM text. Or laziness.
No.
The original point is that it's exactly what an LLM would do to appear human.
Before 2021 I hated typos etc but now I like seeing imperfect text in this new age. I wouldn't have considered it could be a bot (and I don't think it is) but it would certainly have worked on me (to what end, who knows..)
I tend to think the latest models know that "how do I make XYZ more human?" would include making typos. Seems pretty basic.
I think this this the perfect time to bring back old 90-00s webhosting, web rings and all and get them to be trendy and viral if some celebrity could pull people in and get them off this dirtyweb, bot-ridden and dead-internet-theoried. People have been veered hard into content creation and running their own little merchandise dropship etc businesses and all of the options are dinosaurs now.
Wordpress is getting its popularity nuked from orbit, there is definitely room for another "internet" that isn't walled garden social media app slop. Might even get kids into computers again.
But in this admin, economy and no startup capital and a million other things going on right now I don't think it will ever happen.
they can't block the ionosphere
but what if they could... they dump chaff in the air
If you don't know, China runs censorship program against radio signals beginning from the cold war time and it's not officially stopped yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_China. Of course it's not blocking ionosphere level, but not that different than chaffing the air (at the receiver side).
yeah... I don't hope for a doomsday scenario but I do think it would be neat to use these HAM-based internet tech or whatever. Funny how tech becomes obsolete too like same thing but faster/slower. I still mess around with almost 20 year old computers for fun.
Do you consider removing illegal content censorship?
You might be confusing two different things.
Censorship itself doesn't mean right or wrong, good or bad. It's very likely that you would censor your young kids from watching violent videos of real murders and would consider that a good thing, as an example.
Removing 'illegal' content is censorship in your example. If this is a good or bad thing depends on a great many considerations.
Of course it's censorship. In china you can't talk about a certain quadrangle, and when they remove content about it, that's censorship.
That's the definition of censorship, so yes.
Most people prefer censored internet as long as it aligns with their political leaning. Maybe that wasn't the case 15 years ago but it's pretty much true nowadays. I myself consider this as a fact.
> Most people prefer
I would expect most people to not have much of an opinion on what other people are allowed to talk about when they're not around.
The data doesn’t support your “my views are a fact”.
Example: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/04/24/free-expressio...
Most people prefer the status quo whatever status quo currently is. It is the most powerful religion in the world and has always been.
Not really. The past 10 years have seen huge masses of people mobilized worldwide for changing the status quo, and the status quo absolutely has changed as a result. Maybe not in the way you would have wanted, but it’s impossible to deny that the world in the past decade has changed dramatically.
Right - the only way we'll ever get a truly uncensored internet is if it's actually impossible to censor rather than some "gentlemen's agreement" that we'll censor this stuff for the Greater Good but not this other stuff.
I think it's more of a problem that the dividing lines in politics have shifted from left vs right within a liberal democratic framework, to liberal democracy vs populism. 15 years ago everyone was arguing within a democratic framework, partly by social norm and partly because before the internet became so ubiquitous there were many more gatekeepers to the spread of information making circulating disingenuous arguments harder. So if hardly anyone was breaking the rules you didn't need to debate who was breaking the rules of democracy or even what the rules were. E.g. JS Mill said 175 years ago that you couldn't have freedom of speech if you allowed harassment or bad faith arguments, but plenty of populists these days would define freedom of speech precisely in the terms of allowing harassment and by extension whatever the consequences of allowing harassment were are just what freedom looks like, and would then gaslight John Stuart Mill into believing he's the real authoritarian for not agreeing with them.
I agree. Interesting you’re being downvoted. I’ve been using Reddit for 16+ years and have watched it morph from a libertarian, centrist community dominated by developers and geeks, into a very left wing, violent, vehicle to export American political activism to the world. Redditors used to abhor censorship. People would practise debating all kinds of taboo topics because this is how we become wiser. Now just commenting on the wrong community will see you automatically banned from 30 of the largest subreddits.
They study this. [Gen Z is 10x more accepting of violence to suppress speech they object to compared to Boomers.](https://expression.fire.org/p/gen-z-is-10-times-more-accepti...) It seems history really does repeat. People are going to need to experience some authoritarianism to remember why we care so much about free speech.
A true test of one's desire for truly free and open society and speech is whether or not one's willing to stand up and fight for that "other" person's right to say something they hate.
I can't watch soccer highlights from X because all the mods on reddit are sure Elon's evil.
Are you unsure if he is evil?
Is Elon evil?
I expect there's no data to support this, but I really do think this is directly related to the age of the people responding, not their generation.
Boomers today would much rather squawk about threatening lawsuits or getting other people to do the work for them. The ones alive today feel confident in their command of the legal system to get what they want. During the 1960s, how many young Boomers and Silent Generation protested against the Civil Rights movement? Literal bombings and terrorism took place. One black family moving into Cicero, IL led to a violent mob of 4,000 people where it was also young Boomers that shouted and held up swastikas and eventually firebombed the building where the family was going to move in, leaving many other residents of the same building out on the street. -- https://allthatsinteresting.com/anti-civil-rights-movement
Yes, there were obviously not the same people protesting against the war in Vietnam. But, to their credit, Boomers used to turn out for protests back when they were 20.
If you asked Boomers this questions when they were 18-25, I expect their opinions would align pretty close to Gen Z in this survey.
> ... into a very left wing, violent, vehicle to export American political activism to the world
Reddit anecdotes and surveys don't currently reflect reality.
The far-right is responsible for *actual* violence by a large margin in recent history. https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versu...
Over 80% of real world politically motivated violence between 1990–2020 is from far-right actors. Left-wing violence has increased over the past 5 years, but is still completely dwarfed by right-wing violence.
That's a heck of a way to read a paper that the authors acknowledge has gaps on reporting due to media bias
Stats are better than an online survey.
You can look up the stats for these yourself, there's other studies too.
As always, how you define the terms and conditions defines the outcome. If we take a broader view and include Mao, Stalin, Pot, Chavez etc this balance would come out very different.
The comment I replied to was a survey of internet users. So forgive me for thinking we might be talking about something closer to present day, where the right-wing is statistically more violent.
I’m well aware that Reddit doesn’t reflect reality. Most of society is not far left, chronically online, violent, and out of touch with reality.
The study you provide isn’t related to my comment but if you’d like to shoehorn it into future discussions you should at least read it first. That paper is widely criticised, and is, ironically, the kind of thing shared on Reddit. I’ll just copy and paste existing academic criticisms of the paper because I don’t really think you’re going to take the time to seek this out yourself.
1. Inconsistent data collection: The far-right data came from an established extremism database, while the far-left data had to be assembled separately because the database did not routinely track most far-left extremism. This creates a potential sampling bias, with no demonstrated guarantee that both sides received equally comprehensive coverage.
2. Serious numerical inconsistencies: The study counts 168 deaths from the Oklahoma City bombing but reports zero far-right bombing incidents. It also contains basic arithmetic errors, including percentages totalling 110%. These inconsistencies raise legitimate concerns about data quality and the reliability of the analysis.
3. Subjective ideological classifications: The study uses broad political definitions and includes homicides with weak evidence of ideological motivation. Without a fully accessible case-level audit trail, independent researchers cannot easily verify whether incidents were classified consistently or accurately.
4. Unsupported statistical conclusions: The author suggests far-left attacks are more likely to cause multiple fatalities, but the reported difference is not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test, p ≈ 0.22). Drawing substantive conclusions from this difference is therefore questionable.
5. Disproportionate influence of one attack: The Oklahoma City bombing accounts for approximately 32% of all far-right fatalities in the study. Removing that single incident reduces the far-right-to-far-left fatality ratio from 6.7:1 to 4.6:1. The overall disparity remains, but its magnitude is significantly influenced by one exceptional event.
6. Selective historical timeframe: The study begins in 1990, excluding the 1960s–1980s, when far-left revolutionary movements were especially prominent in American domestic terrorism. This timeframe may be appropriate for the research question, but it makes broad claims about political violence across modern history misleading.
7. Conclusions beyond the evidence: The study examines ideologically motivated homicides, not political violence generally. It excludes non-fatal assaults, riots, intimidation, arson without fatalities and other violent offences. Using its findings to claim that the far-right is responsible for most actual violence is therefore a substantial and unjustified extrapolation.
Notably, the time frame used doesn’t reflect reality today, so it cannot be used to make normative claims about which ideology is more violent right now.
The fact this was [dead] says everything you need to know about hacker news
Correct it's not the best study, but it's better than your survey. Mostly since it comes from things that have actually happened which other studies can look at too.
Your points about the data from this study are valid if there weren't multiple other studies that reach the same conclusions. The data still rings true.
You kinda undermined your own original argument by wanting to include non-fatal crimes and violence from the 60s-80s, when I thought we were talking about modern trends and as such is why I picked 1990 onwards.
RE: 5, as you said... when you remove the huge statistical outlier right-wing violence still outpaces left-wing almost 4.6:1. You took proved the point, the right wing is far more violent.
RE: 7, more people die at the hands right-wingers than left. I count death as a higher degree of violence; whereas I've seen you consider a survey response to be violent... so we might be at very different ends of the agreement there.
Anyway, this has been fun and I think we've both reached as far I'm willing to care about. Have a good day.
> libertarian, centrist community dominated by developers and geeks, into a very left wing, violent, vehicle
Now just figure out which of you changed over 16 years.
The last time I saw research on this, they found that the median age of Redditors had dropped significantly over time. I suspect they have a newer and younger user base now. I still talk with older users from time to time and we believe our views on free speech and censorship have not changed significantly over time. However Reddit policy and moderation and majority opinion have changed a lot. They are far more accepting and willing to use censorship to realise political goals.
Reddit did. There is no question about this for anyone who has used it for that long.
Oh, ok. My account is only 14 years old there I think, so I have no idea. Couldn’t be the Overton Window though.
I think questions like this are so leading as to be useless, because they are presented in a way that don't trigger people to inspect their actual beliefs but rather their advertised beliefs. I could imagine a dozen ways to phrase to really bump that boomer contingent:
- [circa 2020] Do you think that the Black Lives Matter protests should be stopped by force?
- Do you think that a police officer should be able to physically prevent burning of the American flag?
etc
You can be libertarian or centrist, you can not be both. Also developers and geeks are left wing fairly commonly. You write as if all geeks and developers were right or something. They are not.
> Gen Z is 10x more accepting of violence to suppress speech they object to compared to Boomers.
That is direct result of practicing taboo topics like violence and normalizing them. A lot of effort was put into making them more aggressive, so success. Mostly on the right, contrary to what you are trying to imply. The violence aggression and censorship are much more common there.
Violence exists up and down the political compass. The real debate is who is allowed to commit violence. The people, or the state. The status quo in most of the developed world is a state monopoly on violence.
The libertarian view is generally that the people should have the monopoly on violence.
[flagged]
> The violence and censorship on the left is the fault of the right?
No, I said that right is more violent then left. Consistently so. That is result of right trying to make right more violent and aggressive.
> It adds an additional dimension to the incorrect belief that libertarians must be left or right wing. Of course even this is a gross oversimplification of how humans think and vote.
One thing libertarians are decisively not is a center. They are not middle of the road group.
> My Polish dev team is very right right, but very libertarian.
Yes, libertarians happily and frequently merge with right including far right. That does not mean geeks and developers are universally on the right or libertarians. Some are and they tend to think they represent everyone.
> They study this. [Gen Z is 10x more accepting of violence to suppress speech they object to compared to Boomers.](https://expression.fire.org/p/gen-z-is-10-times-more-accepti...)
Seems like this is a direct result of being more exposed to the internet. I'm not sure it's their fault when they are raised with ipads in their lap and multi-billion dollar corporations are shoving propaganda (both sides) down everyone's throat 24/7. I wonder if boomers and gen x would feel the same if they grew up the same way.
> It seems history really does repeat. People are going to need to experience some authoritarianism to remember why we care so much about free speech.
Not sure making people experience authoritarianism is the best way to make people remember why free speech is important. That seems more extreme than anything I've read on Reddit lately. Surely there are better solutions.
Not just Internet, but the most abhorrent version of it, aka algorithmic rage-bait machine the Web 2.0 had become.
I can see why people don't value free speech anymore, when the speech had become mostly astroturfing curated by algorithms.
Censorship is the wrong direction, but I see where it coming from emotionally, mass Internet today is an abomination. It wasn't like that when I discovered it.
To be clear I’m not suggesting that that is my preferred outcome. I’m worried that that is what this new generation will vote for. Then when they get it, they’ll realise what they lost, and they’ll have to fight to get it back again.
[dead]
[flagged]
Now explain to me how an “AI data deal” justifies Reddit having a high P/E ratio than Nvidia.
FOSDEM is a great conference!
If you ever get the chance to go, please go! Especially if you're an American I recommend it. It is so different than any other conference I've ever been to in the US.
It doesn't have a lot of sales pitches, the technical content is top notch, and overall it is really fun and interesting to see what everybody is talking about and working on.
+1. I gave a talk in the eBPF room couple years ago and it was an awesome experience. Sometimes I get jaded being a professional software engineer but FOSDEM reminds me there’s a passionate community behind what we do and it’s great to reconnect with that community, and to share some knowledge with others.
I can only second that! And it is so relaxed, came and go whenever you want. No hassle to get tickets like for Congress. Of course you will queue - a lot, but consider it part of the experience.
There are also several events around it that make it nice, like meeting random other FOSDEM attendees over a beer or dancing at ByteNight
Many communities also hold their yearly meetups & dinners there, often the only time people working together daily in the community see each other face to face :)
Yes, a few of our like-minded folks are looking to make the trip. We have been collecting travel tips ourselves. If you'd like to discuss FOSS/H or the trip itself, you might like to join us at: https://trustytech.zulipchat.com/join/75pg2qppqdtkndw6lmz3f3...
Unfortunately, it's very crowded and all the rooms are perpetually full. Been there once, I think I only managed to attend one talk in total.
Yeah they need another venue or to reduce attendees
I welcome you all to my neighbourhood!
Hear hear
It's a very crowded conference at a university campus a few km outside the city centre, in not exactly my favourite city in Europe, but don't let that put you off. Roll up your sleeves and embrace it!
Just think of the beer and waffles!
"Censorship" vs "Content moderation". You can't have online discussions without moderation, and that makes moderation some form of censorship. Thus you can't have online discussions without some form of censorship. Only difference is who is doing the censoring.
Of course you can have online discussion without moderation. In the most basic form: you publish on your site, I respond on mine. No moderator involved
And there are plenty of other differences besides "who", for example, "how".
> can have online discussion without moderation
That's a big negatory.
>you publish on your site,
And your site gets a takedown for illegal content, or cops show up at your door and drag you out while beating you.
Life is heavily moderated in a million different ways. What we're talking about this point is just moderation or unjust moderation.
It’s hard to take down sites on Tor. Usually impossible without the full weight of the FBI/CIA. I agree with the user above: we can do decentralised communication without censorship. Of course if you start from the faulty premise that online discourse needs to occur on one of a handful of censored platforms then that’s impossible.
And so tor has a reputation of mainly being used for illegal things - because it is - and several countries just block the entire thing.
Illegal, meaning There's laws against it, like being gay in many countries. Not morally wrong, although there is a lot of that.
Yes, but using Tor actually can have negative effects, such as buying illegal things, like drugs, and other things that you would want to be anonymous while buying...
Or like doing drugs, in other countries. If you make a system where you can be gay because the law can't touch it, you can also do drugs because the law can't touch it.
even in countries where it's blocked there are ways in. Chinese users are given unlisted bridges which camouflage their traffic signal.
Yeah, that's not going to solve twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.
I'll make my position clear: many parties try to influence people, and quite a few of them do so with grave consequences. The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference. In the words of the article: it's already not "technology serving people", but rather "controlling" them.
If extreme right (or left) parties come to power, your freedom of speech and privacy is over. So it's either moderate moderation, or authoritarian moderation. And if it's up to me, it's not your choice.
> Yeah, that's not going to solve twitter, facebook, instagram, etc.
It sounds like that would precisely be a solution to the problems of using these platforms.
I think we may assume these sites won't go away, and also that a personal blog is not a solution for the vast majority.
> I think we may assume these sites won't go away
So? If you can disengage from them, then your problem is solved.
> and also that a personal blog is not a solution for the vast majority.
It's not reasonable to presume that any specific thing is the best solution for the "vast majority". A healthy ecosystem arises when lots of people with different use cases and preferences build the optimal solutions for themselves; when people try to build universal solutions based on speculation about what's optimal for "the vast majority", that's when things start to go off the rails.
I think blogs are quite viable for many more people than are currently using them; on top of that, the emerging "fediverse" is increasingly replicating the UI and functionality of social media platforms without the centralized middlemen, and if amidst this rapidly diversifying set of options, some people still choose to use centralized social media, then that's their prerogative.
LOL And here, folks, is the problem. This person is absolutely certain the far "right" is the problem ... not his beloved echo chamber censoring totalitarian "left".
An insane take. If you could read, ypu would have understood I'm not in favor of dictatorship nor censorship. Nor am I part of any echo chamber. Thou doth project too much, methinks.
> The swing to extreme right politics cannot be seen separate from internet interference
Correct, specifically, Elon removed widespread (and thoroughly documented) left wing interference on Twitter.
Unfortunately he did eventually add back his own (in the form of boosting his own account), but it's much freer than it was, and for whatever reason Zuck decided to follow suit.
The difference between censorship and moderation is the ability to realistically opt-out. Your friends might get mad at your for saying something, but you can choose your friends. Your community might not allow certain speech, but you generally get to choose the communities you are a part of. When the avenues where 99% of all communication go through "moderate" speech a certain way, that starts being censorship.
The difference is somewhat part who is doing the moderating, but it is far more important the ability to opt-out without significant negative impact.
Those sounds like largely unrelated concepts that just happen to overlap somewhat in practice, and are also very individual. As a private person I don't lose anything at all by not using social media, but if I owned a local pizza shop I'd be losing a ton of business by shunning hat avenue of advertisement.
Personally I think the most useful definition for censorship in the context discussed here is *government* censorship. A company offering a product isn't forcing you to engage with it, even if it is a benefit to do so. You cannot in any way evade the oversight of your government without risking criminal penalties. Amazon can deny you their services. The government can deny you your life and freedom.
It's why the 1st Amendment protects us again government control of speech and assembly, but not the censure and pressure of our peers.
The first amendment protects you from (mostly only direct) government retaliation on your speech. It does not define what is and isn't censorship. It doesn't even protect you from the government circumventing it by having most communications go through private avenues and then strong-arming those private entities to regulate speech. And it certainly doesn't protect you from private censorship from massive corporate entities that seemingly want to have a corporate autocracy.
I live in a world where Signal is free, anything can be encrypted, and the major barrier to any of that is human laziness and a lack of interest.
We don't need conspiracies, people stink at this to begin with and most DO NOT CARE. The tech world is a bubble, we are less than 1% of 1%.
That isn't the reality of moderation. Often moderation effectively acts as a form of censorship, and the two work together. Often moderators either power trip or misunderstand the situation and allow bad actors to abuse the rules to their advantage to have people shut out of the group.
This happens, btw, when there are the most rules and heavy-handed moderation. Places that are less moderated, this rarely happens because people will directly call this behaviour out and the moderators are only intervening on important stuff, e.g., threats of violence, illegal material, etc.
> Only difference is who is doing the censoring.
It's a universe-sized difference though. If a platform owner is doing it you can somply go to another platform. If a democratically elected goverment is doing it you can change the government though it's much harder. Or at least you can soothe yourself that it's being done for the benefit if the people as "the people" sees it. And if an authoritarian government is doing it, you are screwed.
What if the democratically elected government is emailing their pals at the platform owners to do the censoring on their behalf?
"The family had a lot of buffers."
Because this was definitely happening during COVID.
Platforms naturally coalesce into near monopolies due to network effects. It's far easier to get rid of a government than it is to get rid of something like Youtube at this point.
> It's far easier to get rid of a government than it is to get rid of something like Youtube at this point.
the weird thing is that ironically, the people hurt by "youtube" (whatever "youtube" is, i'm not referring to youtube.com specifically) are often the ones both complaining and keeping it alive.
talking about youtube.com specifically, i've seen many complaints about it over the years, yet essentially only two guys (Linus Sebastian and Luke Lafreniere from Linus Media Group) are actually developing an alternative platform (https://www.floatplane.com/).
Essentially all other youtubers are still begging you in tears to "hit like, subscribe and ring that bell icon".
the same also happens for other platforms. it's so... weird ?
YouTube has a moat a mile wide and ten thousand feet deep because their product is insanely expensive to provide. Think about it: they let you upload a basically-unlimited amount of video and then they store it for you forever, for free.
Every competitor which has tried to do this has been eaten alive by the costs of bandwidth and storage, even if they have a deep-pocketed corporate backer (e.g. Twitch will not let you store unlimited VODs like YouTube will). Some companies have managed to flank YouTube and carve out a little niche like short-form video, but I think building an actual YouTube competitor with the features people demand (again, unlimited uploads and eternal storage, for free) is more-or-less impossible.
Didn't torrents solve this problem before Youtube was even invented? Also, it looks like Bilibili is going to expand internationally and they have a pretty good chance of eating Youtube's lunch.
I don’t really see how torrents solved this problem as so many seeders for any file could simply disappear. Not to mention, the significantly higher bandwidth costs of higher resolution video nowadays.
I’m less familiar with bilibili, but afaik it doesn’t do many of the revenue-sharing programs that YouTube does, so might have trouble attracting the same creators. They also have so far been pretty regional and so I’m not sure if we can use them as a sign of success yet.
“simply go to another platform” stopped working years ago when Apple took it upon themselves to decide which platforms you are allowed to install.
RIP Tumblr
"Democracy Just Werks^tm" is starting to look like "The Free Market will solve it" more and more with each passing day...
The free market may eventually get bored...
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis
"Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried"
Not too sure about that. It seems that stuff that is being demonized in democracies has a better approval rating among the people. For example absolute monarchy, as was exercised by Louis XIV.
Democracy sucks pretty hard. No one is held accountable for failure. Puppets with no real power get blamed and replaced to placate the population. If your pockets are deep enough you can buy laws.
as long as it's not the government who is doing the censorship / content moderation then I'm OK
since the government is too powerful and can enforce its ideas with legal violence
20 years ago I heard "I'd rather China than Google" and I still think about it often
Even we accept your premise that moderation is _some_ form of censorship, it still holds that we may not want _other_ or _all_ forms of censorship.
The last sentence of your comment, therefore, is manipulative. It's like saying "ice is a form of water, so you can't have drinks without water, and the only difference is who waters down your bourbon".
> makes moderation some form of censorship
Censorship is when Mallory decides that Alice is not permitted to talk to Bob.
Moderation is when Bob does not want to hear from Alice and Mallory blocks her for him.
The difference is on who's behalf the blocking is being done.
Read the post. It's about government censorship, not content moderation.
uh maybe you can't
Ok Elon
Totally with you.
The same refusal/frustration made me start Mother of all VPNs (moav.sh) early this year.
A talk I gave about the experience and what MoaV came out to be:
Rage-coding the mother of all VPNs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYygWN1MZDE
> Amidst the Internet shutdowns in Iran, as a technologist and member of the Iranian diaspora, I felt so much frustration, helplessness, and anger because I couldn’t do anything. After a few days of processing the initial shock, I was able to get to work and rage-code MoaV -- still ongoing at the time of writing -- which is a modular anti–internet censorship stack, able to run 10+ internet censorship circumvention tools on a small VPS or Raspberry Pi, with the goal of democratizing VPN provisioning. In the first two weeks, the project received tens of thousands of views on X and gained more than 200 stars on GitHub. This talk will be a case study of the project’s development and how to find these niche corners of the internet that can have massive social impact if done right. I’d like to invite the audience to reflect on the daily challenges faced by people in their countries or regions and how we can use our passion to vibe-code useful tools into existence.
We absolutely should not accept the way the internet has been going in modern times. I personally support initiatives like Reticulum/NomadNet, I2P, the Gemini protocol, etc, and think that we need more large-scale adoption of these types of networks as well as FOSS-based software just to maintain our freedom and keep some semblance of the old internet that I grew up loving in the 90s and 00s. The modern commercialized internet with its increasingly authoritarian government monitoring and control is counter-productive to liberty and individual freedom. Much love to the people who run FOSDEM and things like it, wish I could contribute more but I have a very busy schedule right now and not much time/money to travel to conventions and things. Anyway, mahalo and aloha.
The problem is there are so few uncensored places now that if you do make one you overnight become the sweary nasi/pedo/sexads bar because everything else is closed to them.
Basically Reddit 2018.
I think you can make an uncensored place if you have a "doing" place rather than an "entertainment" place.
Hackernews and Lesswrong (whatever you think of Lesswrong is irrelevant) seem to be free from chuds because they don't really appeal to them. The barrier to entry is too high. You have to care about topics that are boring to most people. Styleforum is like that too. I guess these places do have some moderation, but it seems much less intensive than what is required of reddit.
People seem upset that forums are gone, but if you want sanely/laxly moderated places, a forum seems a good call imo.
It requires a strong-willed webmaster and a board culture that rejects such unfun people.
Thus they are censored.
Part of the problem here is there are people that think any kind of censorship or moderation is wrong. I will not make any universal statement about the correctness of their position, but I will make a personal statement about their position. "They are fucking crazy".
Now, every once is a while you need a bit of fucking crazy to shock you out of the position you're in and reassess what position you should hold.
And by blocking certain people, you demonstrate to authorities that you can block anyone you want, and you will be held in contempt if you don't block anyone they want. As opposed to having no technical blocking capability.
>As opposed to having no technical blocking capability.
I mean, this may have worked a decade or two ago, but if you built modern software this way the same government is going to toss your ass in jail.
"Oh no, I built a murder machine that I can't stop, I guess you can't prosecute me for that, it's out of my control".
You can only get away with that now if you're a billion dollar AI company. Otherwise the judge is going to halt your efforts and prosecute you for contempt and stupidity.
It's not for sure and you should consult a lawyer, but it's often the case that a court can't order you to do something you can't do.
Cannot they just make you implement the ability and make sure you are shut down till you did?
Sometimes, but that sort of thing has to clear a much higher legal bar than making you use a blocking ability you already have. See Apple vs FBI.
Yet the law can. All the child protection laws we made years ago have made making unmoderated software very risky.
Notice how they had to make that the law before it became the law. Before it was the law, you didn't have to unless a court ordered you to.
On the forum I'm on, chuds are required to include "trans lives matter" in their comments or they don't show up. It's like anti-censorship.
on rdrama? that website's insane. i think its strategy to moderation is to make people ironically roleplay as their political opposition... which just seems to make everyone ironic edgelords. using rdrama makes me sad.
Then you're using it wrong, it should make you laugh :marseylaugh:
[flagged]
The internet is not what’s being censored. The three platforms that everyone on the internet uses exclusively are being censored.
People then say, well, they can still access other websites! Everyone has a web browser!
Unfortunately the way people disseminate those URLs is via the main censorship platforms, and there are dozens or hundreds of domain names that form URLs which you can’t DM on Discord or Instagram, for example.
The internet as we know it is controlled centrally by Meta and Google and Apple and Microsoft and Amazon - what is done at the network layer is largely irrelevant.
> The internet is not what’s being censored.
Well there's that thing with some countries blocking like all of Cloudflare during sportsball matches, since Cloudflare deliberately makes it impossible to block only whichever of their customers are serving unlicensed sportsball streams.
And I think the "Great Firewall" is still a thing.
And IIRC there's a couple times I've heard about countries taking down connectivity entirely during civil-war / major-unrest type incidents.
There is research on actual Internet censorship, worth following the ARMOR IRTF group.
The chances of China becoming a democracy in the next 20 years are higher than us still being one.
Nah... the entire world is trending towards totalitarianism in lockstep. A world government is the end goal I assume.
Whoa. thanks for sharing my content. Let's see if we can get a great speakers lined up, so we can do a small step towards our mission!
Ironically this page has censored me, it shows "Please wait while your request is being verified" indefinitely.
The big problem with the internet - which is very dysfunctional - is not censorship but propaganda. Everyone on the internet is selling something because that is the only way to pay for being on the internet.
If the people who pay for the internet are not the users then who will the internet serve? Not the users. and since corporations are known soully (as in that is their soul) what would you expect? If people who want to profit by targeting people with lies pay for the internet, is that censorship? Well sort of - but maybe worse.
We need a community internet task force. Lets start one. Request for comments.
RFC.. but we would have to agree what the ground rules are. I somehow suspect that those will be will be somewhat different ( kinda like some would argue against/for codes of conduct ) person to person. Still, if we could upend at least some of the underlying commercial interest or even the need to rely on advertising, it could be something.
edits abound
> Still, if we could upend at least some of the underlying commercial interest or even the need to rely on advertising, it could be something.
This is some good brainstorming on the matter:
https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/
One persons propaganda is another persons truth. Who are you or your task force to decide? The big problem with the internet is it gives dumb people access to each other.
> gives dumb people access to each other
Was this a serious comment? It made me realise that prior to the Internet, information flow was controlled by journalists or through peer reviewed papers and academic forums. People without advanced education would, generally, be limited to people in their local area.
I feel like it is generally a flippant but serious comment. A lot of social problems right now are caused by the fact that rather than having to travel to some large city for a meetup with people that have your particular neuroses, against the friction of well-adjusted people in the real world, now there is a fan club one click away that will ratify whatever fake illness/condition/problem that you have with no serious pushback. A LOT of personal, social, and political problems right now basically boil down to this.
This makes so much sense, this is why I like Hacker News, you get smart people from different political views all having interesting and healthy discussions.
That just points out that another real problem with the internet is that everyone's voice carries the same weight in ways it didn't used to. Every city has a few folks who believe aliens walk among us or otherwise wear tinfoil hats, but their message was limited to AM radio and cable access, and it was clear their content was not of the same journalistic level as the three major networks used to be - used to, because they've also changed. For example, there is conclusive, repeatable and verifiable evidence that the world is not flat, and it shouldn't be so easy to make convincing content that seems like it is.
> shouldn't be so easy to make convincing content that seems like it is.
I agree with some of your points, but, who on Earth is getting convinced that the world is flat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs
Until 1995 commercial use of the internet was completely banned, reviving that rule would solve 99% of the problems with the current internet.
YOU USED TO BE ABLE TO FIND INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET. i sound insane right now because the internet is a store but it used to be a library
— <https://kind.social/@wehpudicabok/117317910370913792>
> We need a community internet task force.
"We"? I think you can look to the history of the 20th century for your soul mates. The kind of thinking you express in your comment always ends with wholesale murder and mass torturing of innocent people to death.
Get the sysadmin from Kiwi Farms to speak.
Nobody wants actual uncensored Internet, good my Sir. They just want to ban what they want to ban.
or the sysadmin from Stormfront, I presume.
I tolerate the freedom of speech of neo-Nazis and cyberbullies because it's the same freedom of speech I use. but they're awful people. FOSDEM is free not to associate with them.
Not sure what your views on Destiny are, but he has a very excellent write-up on KiwiFarms specifically. It's from when Keffals weaponized the masses against them.
You don't have to like them, 4chan doesn't, but both of them just won for everyone worldwide by proving OFCOM has no right to police others outside their own country.
Awful people exist everywhere regardless of a site documenting what people willingly post. Because this allows others to see past the facade they get a lot of hate and unproven claims believed true. People prefer easy, which is fine, and don't typically verify leading to it being exploited by awful people.
> Not a single journalist seemed willing to do any homework beyond copying the work of other journalists before them. In the end, the “three suicides” caused by Kiwi Farms ended up being two misrepresentations and one uncomfirmed case.
https://destinygg.substack.com/p/keffals-a-case-study-on-int...
Rights don't really matter at the international level - every country does what they can. OFCOM polices what it can, and doesn't police what it can't, but still tries to.
Destiny is apparently a terminally online full-time Twitch streamer who keeps getting caught doing child porn, child grooming, revenge porn and more. Not sure why we should listen to that guy.
I liked the idea of Gab when it came out but it ended up (last time I checked) being an unedifying cesspit.
Yes, but that's because everyone with a mainstream opinion has dozens of other platforms to chose from.
Yes, they're free to posture.
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-closure-of-the-inter...
The most comprehensive post I've seen on how quickly and totally the internet has changed over the last decade. As someone that got online in the early aughts and hung out on usenet and slashdot, the modern net is unrecognizable.
Apropos: I just realised I've almost never seen substack in a search engine result (logged out Google, DDG etc). Time to fix that
yeah the modern net is a better experience for the billions of people who aren’t nerds like us on HN
As the author pointed out, most soft routers are easily blockable because their protocol can be observed even from an opaque perspective.
Tricks for obfuscation I learned over the years:
- use exfil protocols (e.g. http smuggling via chunked encoding, DNS TXT)
- rotate exit nodes while sessions not only between (ronin behavior)
- encryption is useless with no padding or zero based padding, use one based padding instead
- scatter traffic through peers
- use manual caching everywhere, DNS TTL, HTTP entity based tracking, etc will be automatically unfeasible
- always think about the god's eye perspective of ISPs
One of my working soft router concepts, I've open sourced as Tholian Warps [1]
[1] https://github.com/tholian-network/warps
sensorship is unfortunately required in a world where unexperienced, uneducated, people with LEGITIMATE grievances start agitating for change, but whos efforts and energys will result in disaster and chaos, the coulor revolutions that happened in the middle east are absolute proof of this, decades of war, millions of casualties, and now no way out of the divisions. I will very strongly advocate for completly uncensored physical libraries and peer to peer communication, but will resist 'platforming' ANYBODY, we dont need mass leaders, we need coaches and mentors, colaberators, companions, helpers, bosses, and a general reshaping of the hiarchical structure of human civilisation into something that is much more distributed in practice but unified in principal.
Tik Tok has trained a generation to want to self-censor and even worse to believe it's good to do so. The terrifying result may be to lose access to Tik Tok. Obey, self-censor giving up the entire idea of a democracy and freedom of expression, or you lose access to...stupid fluff.
I refuse to accept a censored Internet. Around the world, people are being silenced, monitored, and denied access to information.
Why now. Censorship in Russia, Iran and China has grown much more sophisticated
The twenty-sixth edition of FOSDEM will take place on Saturday 30th and Sunday 31st January 2027 at the usual location, ULB Campus Solbosch in Brussels.
Doing this axis of evil routine without even a token mention of censorship by "western" regimes, including your own, suggests a level of willful blindness or self-delusion. The censored internet has always been Eurasian, etc.
> refuses to accept internet censorship
> claims china & russia are the biggest threats
Why throw stones when we have plenty of work to do here?
Maybe a starting point that nobody would disagree on? You could ask the author, at least I feel like at Fosdem everyone's approachable
yeah and it looks to be scoped toward L2 / L3 censorship rather than broader socialmedia censorship. could be interesting. thanks for highlighting that.
It seems like "censored internet" will be the least of the worries when it comes to agent explosion. Even if your internet is free, how are you going to find it through the slop brigades generating and consuming the same "load bearing" crap. Even if you setup the oracle of the day, and no one stops you, how are you going to filter all the crap out to find it? And how will you afford it when everyone puts up pay gates to deal with the xplosion, leading to only the most valuable aislop being allowed on.
I agree. They are fighting the last war.
If crap is indistinguishable from substance, is it truly crap?
If it is distinguishable, can’t the machines do the distinguishing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
>The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it
I can put all kinds of words together that are legitimate uses of language, but that doesn't mean they mean anything or have any ground truth. Determining truth is massively more difficult than saying words.
It’s not about refuting random collections of words, but rather that lies spread faster than truth.
Do you have kids?
As a parent you'll punish or otherwise teach your kids not to lie. Really quickly you'll find yourself punishing them for telling the truth, but not the full truth.
Not for nothing, but lying by omission is still a lie.
In the topic we're talking about proving something was a lie or bullshit, and proving a lie by omission gets really really hard, much harder than proving something is an outright lie.
> If it is distinguishable, can’t the machines do the distinguishing?
No? Just like they are not able to reliably tell if a piece of text was LLM written or not aside from by having access to the watermarking that some providers and models intentionally embed in the text.
> If crap is indistinguishable from substance, is it truly crap?
The crap is very very distinguishable. But there is so much of it we have to wade through, and it’s only getting worse.
The problem starts, when places like FOSDEM which originally where slightly left-leaning-anarchist (in a positive sense) start talking about censorship but only mention Russia, China and Iran. Maybe you should google for Jaques Baud, who is actually trapped in Brussels and invite him? Yes, yes, I know, Chinese LLMs and Tianamen square. Well, go and ask chatGPT for the crimes of presidents of the nothern area between Atlantic and Pacific... The problem is the global brainwash.
Dude, Zuckerberg is "I am CEO, bitch" of Facebook for 22 years since 2004, and civilization worldview (except a few places) is filtered and shaped through this seemingly benign "digital freedom" ether, and everyone has account tied to email and personal phone number and "People just submitted it." cos "They "trust me"", "Dumb fucks".
The authoritarian regime is what these 'Careless People' do every day, over whole world, and not just over few countries here and there, but you try very hard to brain wash everyone to believing that China or Russia is reason that you algorithmic feed is mentally retarded, or that France is going nuts. Fuck you.
Then there're spam and geo-block problems.
AI will help them to create the perfect cage.
No jailbreak, no exploits
I mean yes, it is likely there is no other probable outcome.
One of the big problems with the HN rugged individualist types is they think they'll get to have awesome unlimited power at their broke ass individual scale and that somehow people with millions or billions of dollars aren't going to use said power fully to their advantage while crushing anyone that stands in their way.
More so they think that power seeking type people and organizations will not quickly adopt this technology and spend massive amounts of money to entrench their legal position while weakening everyone else's rights.
As much as technology may free us, it seems even more probable that it will put us in the perfect cage as you say, or just completely end us all. There is no universal law that says technology cannot power scale way beyond humans ability to remain chemically stable. If we fly too close to the sun our wings will melt off.
come join us on reticulum
The want for uncensored social media and without the surveillance is what many are discussing here.
The solution is an application framework that removes the 3rd party between any two users or groups of users. The client/server model can't do that. Other models can.
If Facebook/Instagram didn't meddle with users' conversations at scale, the social climate would be very different today. Not because the users can't think for themselves, but because they can.
These systems are not the internet, they run on top of the internet.
If you have ever used Facebook/Instagram or Twitter or know enough people who have, you really need to see this https://rumble.com/v4dxvjo-ep.75-tucker-carlson-interviews-m...
A distributed application model that provides for all of the cool applications we enjoy today without creating "moderation" hotspots for the "reddit mod" archetype, or the "whole of society" horse shit, is the solution that will give non-technical normal people, a systematically oppressed and marginalized demographic specifically, what they have been wanting for since 2018.
A major part of the freedom multi inter-network that freedom loving people want picture, are networks and inter-networks that can survive government-imposed internet kill switches, the topic of the "darknet plan" mentioned here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50235196
I remember r/darknetplan
There are a handful of projects and protocols that are about a fraction of the way to total freedom but they haven't been synthesized into something cohesive yet. What a functioning freedom oriented multi inter-network looks like is a whole different suite of protocols built with a mindful intent to shirk some anti-patterns and ossification of today's conventional web. One key objective is no more Cloudflare shit. inb4 "but how do we deal with bots", different protocol suite model, different "architecture".
About a healthy internet, if you care about that IPv6 with PCP is what you want. CGNAT kills peer to peer traffic, CGNAT is de facto censorship, upstream and at scale. If you care about the internet, then start proactively turning off IPv4 and shunning people who say that IPv4 is "okay". CGNAT can be kludged around with proxies because the internet is so fast but it requires a lot of overhead and leaves a huge vulnerability.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
This a great discussion!
The modern internet is a largely centralized network built for the following purposes:
- commerce
- surveillance
- platforming voices for states and the wealthy
You're right about the latter. X is the most obvious example. That being said, what I've noticed is that there was a shift with the arrival of Instagram and smartphones. Social media used to be more symmetric (i.e. we're both friends, we're on the same level), but IG, which came with smartphones, shifted thing into an influenver vs follower regime, which is more akin to producer vs consumer. Influencers make high profile content which takes more time to produce and have lots of followers, whereas the masses passively consume content on their smartphone and their voices are largely irrelevant on those platforms.