7 ms·

Checked the FAQ. Downside: It doesn't support Tor and they don't seem to have any plan for that. So it's trusted-friends-only, IPs are always visible. Which is

Checked the FAQ. Downside: It doesn't support Tor and they don't seem to have any plan for that. So it's trusted-friends-only, IPs are always visible. Which is pointless for me, as a person trying to build healthy online friendships from behind Tor. Upside: I was afraid it's a reaction to Parler being deplatformed. And then I thought maybe it was a side-project of Urbit. But looking at the Values page: "No nazis, no TERFs, no alt-right—or anyone friendly with them" So that's cool.

eznzt 6y ago
> as a person trying to build healthy online friendships from behind Tor. As someone who's spent a lot of time on Tor-related IRC channels and other communities, gl lol
snowflake_ptr 6y ago
> or anyone friendly with them This is disgusting - it implies that you should pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation, which not only is extremely (and intentionally) divisive, but also provides no room for guiding these individuals back to a more moderate political stance. Without being friends (or at least interacting with) with those who have been ostracized by society, how, exactly, do you propose to try to get them to change their minds? I'm also curious as to how they plan to enforce this constraint - Cabal appears to be completely decentralized, correct?
- generalizations 6y ago
  > pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation I think this is the saddest part of what's been happening recently. We don't need to separate ourselves from people with different viewpoints. I'm lucky enough to be friends with people on the left and the right, but I think that's only because we stay away from politics. In fact, it's something that used to be a Christian ideal - to be able to maintain a courteous friendship with someone you are fundamentally at odds with (See: Song of Roland, Christian & "Saracen" Knights). It's not often something I see folks right of center doing, but it seems like a ton of people left of center have been distancing themselves from people with whom they disagree too strongly. It's too bad. We need to open up to more discourse, not less.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I don’t distance myself from people with a different opinion. I distance myself from people that have a different opinion for the wrong reasons.
    - generalizations 6y ago
      Is there a difference? The reasons we hold our opinions are fundamentally just another set of opinions. Unless you're talking about something more fundamental - in that case, yes, we can still be friends when our first principles are opposed. It's just harder. I think it comes down to just how tolerant we're willing to be. It's easy to be tolerant when the stakes are low; who cares if someone is doing something somewhere else that makes us uncomfortable? The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        > The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm. That seems like a foolish ideal that has the end result of you being marginalized, with people who would do harm to you and others gaining control of society. Frankly, it sounds like just another system of control invented by religious leaders. People who actively do us harm should be swiftly and firmly disabused of the notion that what they're doing will ever be tolerated. Anything less is folly.
        generalizations 6y ago
        Tolerance doesn't mean you never resist. Tolerance means you're willing to have a conversation, and you can be friends in spite of fundamental differences. Christians who live up to the ideal are willing to have a civil relationship with anyone. That's the point. That's tolerance. It means you actually know the other person, and you're not making (possibly misinformed) assumptions about them. The next step in the relationship may very well be to 'firmly disabuse them', but it's not the first step.
- clarkmoody 6y ago
  We're dealing with a religion at this point. Those with wrongthink in their heads cannot be brought back to the light. They are heretics and deserve punishment.
- makeworld 6y ago
  Keep in mind the quote was about Nazis. Being able to stay friends with a Nazi is not something many people can do, such as non-whites and non-christians. Trying to change the mind of someone who believes you deserve to die is painful at best and not worth the time.
torstenvl 6y ago
A site that is exclusively radical left (to the point that JK Rowling is grouped in with Nazis) is not helpful and certainly not "cool." EDIT: The downvotes only prove my point re the rabidity of left-wing groupthink right now, so...
- t0astbread 6y ago
  Without getting into JK Rowling, a site that has the technical means to but willfully ignores transphobia or homophobia certainly is not "cool".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    It isn't transphobia to object to female erasure. Not every women's issue is also a trans women's issue, and it's sexist to insist otherwise.
    - vmception 6y ago
      plenty of transmen that many of us are trying to empower too......... the non-sexist trans inclusivity movement overlapped with the female inclusivity movement trans exclusionary feminism is considered radical, its what the R in Terf stands for. It means it doesn't have consensus. yes, some positions and status will go to males that are transwoman instead of females. I don't think there is any coordination or plot in this to "erase females". (I feel like this concept is different across English speaking countries, in America the movement has landed on the concept that we have separated sex and gender, so there are two sexes which remains binary: male and female, and there are non-binary genders which includes but it not limited to man and woman designations, and they don't have to match the sex. Sometimes I see people in the UK getting into semantics issues with an American audience, whether they are purposefully being insensitive or not.)
    - hackmiester 6y ago
      How can it be sexist to compare the issues of 2 groups of women?
floatboth 6y ago
Hm. scuttlebutt, which is also a system with "off-grid" considerations, has built-in support for tor https://handbook.scuttlebutt.nz/faq/misc/tor https://handbook.scuttlebutt.nz/faq/misc/tor
substack 6y ago
We (cabal devs) have had many discussions about supporting i2p out of the box and this is a high priority in the project road map.
userbinator 6y ago
This new trend in identity politics is more disturbing than anything the left or right has done.
- hackmiester 6y ago
  I love the idea of a site that doesn't give Nazis a voice. This is apparently somehow a controversial idea. It is becoming exhausting.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    The problem is it give approved extremists a voice while bragging about not giving unapproved extremists a voice. That should be controversial.
    - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
      I'm trying to understand how to channel what you said. Are you saying that being extremely against Nazis is bad because being extremely anything is bad and we should only have non-extreme feelings?
      - wernercd 6y ago
        My problem is with those who stand against "extremists" (ZOMG Those silly Nazi's) while supporting "extremists" (AntiFA/BLM groups responsible for dozens of riots, hundreds of millions in damage, many dead and federal buildings ransacked/burned, etc...)... Why is it hard to understand how hypocritical it is of most groups screaming about the DC riots when those same groups are tactly supportive of worse over longer periods of time? At no point did I say "being anti nazi" is bad... I said being anti-extremist while being pro-extremist is... questionable.
        BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        > My problem is with those who stand against "extremists" while supporting "extremists" It sounds like you see an equivalence between "rioting" and "rioting". I get what you're saying, but I'm also pretty sure that the people you're calling hypocrites have a more nuanced view than that and differentiate based on context and cause and don't consider "white supremacist Q-conspiracy-lie-believers rioting" (which this was) to be equal to "people rioting because police officers keep killing in circumstances that don't warrant it without serious repercussion" (which the BLM riots were). We can also note that many of the BLM riots only turned violent _after_ local police started shooting gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets at crowds. But even if that weren't the case, the causes and contexts would still be different. It seems to me like the people you're talking about are in fact neither anti-extremist nor pro-extremist. They're anti-white-supremacists and anti-police-getting-away-with-murder. Those are not contradictory positions. > groups screaming about the DC riots I haven't seen anyone screaming about context-free "DC riots". I see people screaming about "white supremacist Q-anon-lie-conspiracy-believers rioting in DC trying to capture or kill congresspersons and overthrow a (mostly-if-you-ignore-voter-suppression) fair democratic election" and I think that makes a big difference. It's not the riots that these people are worried about. It's the reason for the riots, and the reasons are not equal.
Thorentis 6y ago
What part of "peer-to-peer" and "off-grid" is made better by allowing a third party to choose which people can and cannot use the platform? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you build a fully decentralised platform where humans self-moderate by selecting which communities they participate in, or you create a walled garden that you moderate but that becomes more centralised when you do so.
- jackjeff 6y ago
  Since it’s P2P, I don’t think there’s anything stopping actual Nazis from using the service in practice. The stuff about values is wishful thinking. Truly illegal/unsavory content is unlikely to use the service since IP addresses are public.
DeadReckoning 6y ago
Why would anyone care about using a p2p nonstandard messenger except for free speech? This app implies it will moderate certain groups. If you’re saying something uncontroversial you can just use a bigtech app.
- oftheoaks 6y ago
  I like cabal because I can read & write messages when I'm offline or there's no internet. It's also nice because I can start a private chat room for my friends without anyone needing to host and maintain any servers or infrastructure.
tsujp 6y ago
It's open source, what's stopping you from contributing?

eznzt 6y ago

> as a person trying to build healthy online friendships from behind Tor. As someone who's spent a lot of time on Tor-related IRC channels and other communities, gl lol

snowflake_ptr 6y ago

> or anyone friendly with them This is disgusting - it implies that you should pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation, which not only is extremely (and intentionally) divisive, but also provides no room for guiding these individuals back to a more moderate political stance. Without being friends (or at least interacting with) with those who have been ostracized by society, how, exactly, do you propose to try to get them to change their minds? I'm also curious as to how they plan to enforce this constraint - Cabal appears to be completely decentralized, correct?

generalizations 6y ago
> pick and choose your friends based on political affiliation I think this is the saddest part of what's been happening recently. We don't need to separate ourselves from people with different viewpoints. I'm lucky enough to be friends with people on the left and the right, but I think that's only because we stay away from politics. In fact, it's something that used to be a Christian ideal - to be able to maintain a courteous friendship with someone you are fundamentally at odds with (See: Song of Roland, Christian & "Saracen" Knights). It's not often something I see folks right of center doing, but it seems like a ton of people left of center have been distancing themselves from people with whom they disagree too strongly. It's too bad. We need to open up to more discourse, not less.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I don’t distance myself from people with a different opinion. I distance myself from people that have a different opinion for the wrong reasons.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    Is there a difference? The reasons we hold our opinions are fundamentally just another set of opinions. Unless you're talking about something more fundamental - in that case, yes, we can still be friends when our first principles are opposed. It's just harder. I think it comes down to just how tolerant we're willing to be. It's easy to be tolerant when the stakes are low; who cares if someone is doing something somewhere else that makes us uncomfortable? The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      > The Christian ideal is to be tolerant of someone who is actively doing us harm. That seems like a foolish ideal that has the end result of you being marginalized, with people who would do harm to you and others gaining control of society. Frankly, it sounds like just another system of control invented by religious leaders. People who actively do us harm should be swiftly and firmly disabused of the notion that what they're doing will ever be tolerated. Anything less is folly.
      - generalizations 6y ago
        Tolerance doesn't mean you never resist. Tolerance means you're willing to have a conversation, and you can be friends in spite of fundamental differences. Christians who live up to the ideal are willing to have a civil relationship with anyone. That's the point. That's tolerance. It means you actually know the other person, and you're not making (possibly misinformed) assumptions about them. The next step in the relationship may very well be to 'firmly disabuse them', but it's not the first step.
clarkmoody 6y ago
We're dealing with a religion at this point. Those with wrongthink in their heads cannot be brought back to the light. They are heretics and deserve punishment.
makeworld 6y ago
Keep in mind the quote was about Nazis. Being able to stay friends with a Nazi is not something many people can do, such as non-whites and non-christians. Trying to change the mind of someone who believes you deserve to die is painful at best and not worth the time.

torstenvl 6y ago

A site that is exclusively radical left (to the point that JK Rowling is grouped in with Nazis) is not helpful and certainly not "cool." EDIT: The downvotes only prove my point re the rabidity of left-wing groupthink right now, so...

t0astbread 6y ago
Without getting into JK Rowling, a site that has the technical means to but willfully ignores transphobia or homophobia certainly is not "cool".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 6y ago
  It isn't transphobia to object to female erasure. Not every women's issue is also a trans women's issue, and it's sexist to insist otherwise.
  - vmception 6y ago
    plenty of transmen that many of us are trying to empower too......... the non-sexist trans inclusivity movement overlapped with the female inclusivity movement trans exclusionary feminism is considered radical, its what the R in Terf stands for. It means it doesn't have consensus. yes, some positions and status will go to males that are transwoman instead of females. I don't think there is any coordination or plot in this to "erase females". (I feel like this concept is different across English speaking countries, in America the movement has landed on the concept that we have separated sex and gender, so there are two sexes which remains binary: male and female, and there are non-binary genders which includes but it not limited to man and woman designations, and they don't have to match the sex. Sometimes I see people in the UK getting into semantics issues with an American audience, whether they are purposefully being insensitive or not.)
  - hackmiester 6y ago
    How can it be sexist to compare the issues of 2 groups of women?

floatboth 6y ago

Hm. scuttlebutt, which is also a system with "off-grid" considerations, has built-in support for tor https://handbook.scuttlebutt.nz/faq/misc/tor https://handbook.scuttlebutt.nz/faq/misc/tor

substack 6y ago

We (cabal devs) have had many discussions about supporting i2p out of the box and this is a high priority in the project road map.

userbinator 6y ago

This new trend in identity politics is more disturbing than anything the left or right has done.

hackmiester 6y ago
I love the idea of a site that doesn't give Nazis a voice. This is apparently somehow a controversial idea. It is becoming exhausting.
- wernercd 6y ago
  The problem is it give approved extremists a voice while bragging about not giving unapproved extremists a voice. That should be controversial.
  - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
    I'm trying to understand how to channel what you said. Are you saying that being extremely against Nazis is bad because being extremely anything is bad and we should only have non-extreme feelings?
    - wernercd 6y ago
      My problem is with those who stand against "extremists" (ZOMG Those silly Nazi's) while supporting "extremists" (AntiFA/BLM groups responsible for dozens of riots, hundreds of millions in damage, many dead and federal buildings ransacked/burned, etc...)... Why is it hard to understand how hypocritical it is of most groups screaming about the DC riots when those same groups are tactly supportive of worse over longer periods of time? At no point did I say "being anti nazi" is bad... I said being anti-extremist while being pro-extremist is... questionable.
      - BugsJustFindMe 6y ago
        > My problem is with those who stand against "extremists" while supporting "extremists" It sounds like you see an equivalence between "rioting" and "rioting". I get what you're saying, but I'm also pretty sure that the people you're calling hypocrites have a more nuanced view than that and differentiate based on context and cause and don't consider "white supremacist Q-conspiracy-lie-believers rioting" (which this was) to be equal to "people rioting because police officers keep killing in circumstances that don't warrant it without serious repercussion" (which the BLM riots were). We can also note that many of the BLM riots only turned violent _after_ local police started shooting gas, pepper balls, and rubber bullets at crowds. But even if that weren't the case, the causes and contexts would still be different. It seems to me like the people you're talking about are in fact neither anti-extremist nor pro-extremist. They're anti-white-supremacists and anti-police-getting-away-with-murder. Those are not contradictory positions. > groups screaming about the DC riots I haven't seen anyone screaming about context-free "DC riots". I see people screaming about "white supremacist Q-anon-lie-conspiracy-believers rioting in DC trying to capture or kill congresspersons and overthrow a (mostly-if-you-ignore-voter-suppression) fair democratic election" and I think that makes a big difference. It's not the riots that these people are worried about. It's the reason for the riots, and the reasons are not equal.

Thorentis 6y ago

What part of "peer-to-peer" and "off-grid" is made better by allowing a third party to choose which people can and cannot use the platform? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you build a fully decentralised platform where humans self-moderate by selecting which communities they participate in, or you create a walled garden that you moderate but that becomes more centralised when you do so.

jackjeff 6y ago
Since it’s P2P, I don’t think there’s anything stopping actual Nazis from using the service in practice. The stuff about values is wishful thinking. Truly illegal/unsavory content is unlikely to use the service since IP addresses are public.

DeadReckoning 6y ago

Why would anyone care about using a p2p nonstandard messenger except for free speech? This app implies it will moderate certain groups. If you’re saying something uncontroversial you can just use a bigtech app.

oftheoaks 6y ago
I like cabal because I can read & write messages when I'm offline or there's no internet. It's also nice because I can start a private chat room for my friends without anyone needing to host and maintain any servers or infrastructure.

tsujp 6y ago

It's open source, what's stopping you from contributing?