10 ms·

Rumble, an open source, offline, censorship resistant microblog (2017)

147 points by hkt 5y ago

starkd 5y ago
Unfortunately, the name is already being used by a video sharing service. How could they not have noticed?
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Rumble (actual) is also being pushed as a censorship resistant service. So it’s either a big mistake, or trying hijack SEO or something, IDK.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Indeed, a [genius marketing ploy to/terrible gaffe not to] predict in 2014 that a ~1 year old video startup nobody heard of with the same name would in 2020 become popular due to its censorship position.
  - bdcravens 5y ago
    This project has been around since 2017. Rumble the video service has been around since 2013, but in 2017 wasn't the target it is now.
    - duskwuff 5y ago
      2014, actually. 2017 was the date of the last commit. https://github.com/Marlinski/Rumble/commit/4b8d07c3 https://github.com/Marlinski/Rumble/commit/4b8d07c3
- bdcravens 5y ago
  There's a ton of open source projects with names that are common words.
wussboy 5y ago
I think the architecture of “censorship resistance” must appeal to developers, which is why so many of these platforms exist. Unfortunately they’re solving the wrong problem. Censorship isn’t what make social media and blogging so toxic to our culture. It’s the lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the undeterred gathering of information. But sure. Let’s have another platform that is most likely to become popular purely for illegal uses.
- HKH2 5y ago
  The one-size-fits-all model is the main problem. It's cultural imperialism. I think it is mostly solved by relative ranking systems and the user having power to block any terms they don't want. You should get content similar to those that have similar preferences to you.
- tomxor 5y ago
  They way it solves censorship is through decentralisation, which solves most of the other problems simply by being free of the issues inherent to abusive centralised social media platforms i.e Facebook... ads, optimising for user attention on shit content, and anything else trying to extract value that is not in the users interest. However the problem with decentralised platforms is often more to do with marketing for "normals", even if the tech is sound it will not succeed if it is too obscure. If they can make this into an app and get it passed Apple's and Google's gardens, it might have a chance to compete against facebook and twitter.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  Reputational cost to whom? The platforms? Due to network effects they are quasi-monopolies. The FAANGs have moved in recent years to cement their monopolies via government influence. What did they have to offer in return? Political donations and censorship-on-demand. Or do you mean the bad actors are the ones initiating censoring on behalf of the platforms (via scurrilous flagging of wrongthink, or by mobbing down heterodox opinion). The platforms are taking their cues from politics (government and tech culture) and don't need the reporting system to censor people. I assume you don't mean there's a lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the bad actors are those who are being censored, as that wouldn't make sense.
tdhz77 5y ago
Censorship can be a good thing. It took me a long time to figure this out.
- Tokelin 5y ago
  In what ways? I would be inclined to agree on some level, seeing what the state of most social media is, but some examples are always useful.
  - elisbce 5y ago
    Simple. Take a look at the dark net. Anything that exists there but not on the clear net is censored. e.g. Pro-nazi, anti-humanity, hatred, drugs, CSAM, extreme criminal information is censored from the clear web. Absolute freedom gives you absolute chaos. It is just a matter of degree of "freedom".
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      All of which existed prior to the Dark Net. What allows unwanted marginals to have a digital presence is also what allows the dissents of today and tomorrow to exist.
      - tdhz77 5y ago
        Free speech is hardly the only value in a democratic state. The First Amendment protected Internet intermediaries from obligations to censor, while at the same time rebuffing efforts to impose stricter privacy obligations on Internet enterprises. The First Amendment thus created the business model of new media, permitting it to publish vast amounts of speech but not be held liable for that speech, while at the same time earning income through advertising based on personal profiling. For the first time, individuals could now speak to the nation—through YouTube, Twitter.. profiting from lies is now a viable economic model. It’s a threat to democracy and undoubtedly will be its undoing unless we censor.
        5y ago
imback 5y ago
Hot take: Just blog with markdown in a git repo and let whoever is reading it do the rest.
pphysch 5y ago
What is an argument for how these "decentralized" technologies deal with scaling to millions of users?
d--b 5y ago
That it relies on bluetooth/wifi rather than on the internet is interesting to me. It means that the network is human-based, and really feels like underground networks in heavily-censored states from before the 00s. Think resistance networks in China who would distribute forbidden books, or how american films made their way in the ussr by exchanging VHS. I'd argue that this is not something to evade censorship from big platforms, but rather to evade surveillance in deeply corrupt countries.
- mukesh610 5y ago
  I'd say it's a rather insecure platform if it's meant to evade surveillance. In a heavily censored state, the only types of people who'd use this platform are those who are against the state, and if the state gets hold of this application it's pretty easy to find out what's being shared just by walking close to one of the users who are most likely already in a watchlist.
  - Anunayj 5y ago
    And can also be used to find new people.
nyanpasu64 5y ago
I wanted to try it out, but the code hasn't been updated since 2017 and the last F-Droid release was in 2016. Is this project still useful? Being updated to fix bugs?
Whatarethese 5y ago
Unfortunately like most platforms with no censorship they are over run by racism and incels. They eventually run out of money and shut down. What a terrible business model.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  How do you know ? How much of the network have you seen, since it's based on wifi and bt?
mrunseen 5y ago
Reminds me of North Korea’s very own Red Star OS’ watermarking of the files. Starts at 34:55 https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7174-lifting_the_fog_on_red_star_os#t=2094 https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7174-lifting_the_fog_on_red_star... TLDW: Operating system appends hash everytime the file is copied, making it possible to track the original source of file without requiring another tracking mechanism (ie. internet)

147 points by hkt 5y ago

starkd 5y ago

Unfortunately, the name is already being used by a video sharing service. How could they not have noticed?

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Rumble (actual) is also being pushed as a censorship resistant service. So it’s either a big mistake, or trying hijack SEO or something, IDK.
- detaro 5y ago
  Indeed, a [genius marketing ploy to/terrible gaffe not to] predict in 2014 that a ~1 year old video startup nobody heard of with the same name would in 2020 become popular due to its censorship position.
- bdcravens 5y ago
  This project has been around since 2017. Rumble the video service has been around since 2013, but in 2017 wasn't the target it is now.
  - duskwuff 5y ago
    2014, actually. 2017 was the date of the last commit. https://github.com/Marlinski/Rumble/commit/4b8d07c3 https://github.com/Marlinski/Rumble/commit/4b8d07c3
bdcravens 5y ago
There's a ton of open source projects with names that are common words.

wussboy 5y ago

I think the architecture of “censorship resistance” must appeal to developers, which is why so many of these platforms exist. Unfortunately they’re solving the wrong problem. Censorship isn’t what make social media and blogging so toxic to our culture. It’s the lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the undeterred gathering of information. But sure. Let’s have another platform that is most likely to become popular purely for illegal uses.

HKH2 5y ago
The one-size-fits-all model is the main problem. It's cultural imperialism. I think it is mostly solved by relative ranking systems and the user having power to block any terms they don't want. You should get content similar to those that have similar preferences to you.
tomxor 5y ago
They way it solves censorship is through decentralisation, which solves most of the other problems simply by being free of the issues inherent to abusive centralised social media platforms i.e Facebook... ads, optimising for user attention on shit content, and anything else trying to extract value that is not in the users interest. However the problem with decentralised platforms is often more to do with marketing for "normals", even if the tech is sound it will not succeed if it is too obscure. If they can make this into an app and get it passed Apple's and Google's gardens, it might have a chance to compete against facebook and twitter.
ctrlp 5y ago
Reputational cost to whom? The platforms? Due to network effects they are quasi-monopolies. The FAANGs have moved in recent years to cement their monopolies via government influence. What did they have to offer in return? Political donations and censorship-on-demand. Or do you mean the bad actors are the ones initiating censoring on behalf of the platforms (via scurrilous flagging of wrongthink, or by mobbing down heterodox opinion). The platforms are taking their cues from politics (government and tech culture) and don't need the reporting system to censor people. I assume you don't mean there's a lack of reputational cost to bad actors and the bad actors are those who are being censored, as that wouldn't make sense.

tdhz77 5y ago

Censorship can be a good thing. It took me a long time to figure this out.

Tokelin 5y ago
In what ways? I would be inclined to agree on some level, seeing what the state of most social media is, but some examples are always useful.
- elisbce 5y ago
  Simple. Take a look at the dark net. Anything that exists there but not on the clear net is censored. e.g. Pro-nazi, anti-humanity, hatred, drugs, CSAM, extreme criminal information is censored from the clear web. Absolute freedom gives you absolute chaos. It is just a matter of degree of "freedom".
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    All of which existed prior to the Dark Net. What allows unwanted marginals to have a digital presence is also what allows the dissents of today and tomorrow to exist.
    - tdhz77 5y ago
      Free speech is hardly the only value in a democratic state. The First Amendment protected Internet intermediaries from obligations to censor, while at the same time rebuffing efforts to impose stricter privacy obligations on Internet enterprises. The First Amendment thus created the business model of new media, permitting it to publish vast amounts of speech but not be held liable for that speech, while at the same time earning income through advertising based on personal profiling. For the first time, individuals could now speak to the nation—through YouTube, Twitter.. profiting from lies is now a viable economic model. It’s a threat to democracy and undoubtedly will be its undoing unless we censor.
      - 5y ago

imback 5y ago

Hot take: Just blog with markdown in a git repo and let whoever is reading it do the rest.

pphysch 5y ago

What is an argument for how these "decentralized" technologies deal with scaling to millions of users?

d--b 5y ago

That it relies on bluetooth/wifi rather than on the internet is interesting to me. It means that the network is human-based, and really feels like underground networks in heavily-censored states from before the 00s. Think resistance networks in China who would distribute forbidden books, or how american films made their way in the ussr by exchanging VHS. I'd argue that this is not something to evade censorship from big platforms, but rather to evade surveillance in deeply corrupt countries.

mukesh610 5y ago
I'd say it's a rather insecure platform if it's meant to evade surveillance. In a heavily censored state, the only types of people who'd use this platform are those who are against the state, and if the state gets hold of this application it's pretty easy to find out what's being shared just by walking close to one of the users who are most likely already in a watchlist.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  And can also be used to find new people.

nyanpasu64 5y ago

I wanted to try it out, but the code hasn't been updated since 2017 and the last F-Droid release was in 2016. Is this project still useful? Being updated to fix bugs?

Whatarethese 5y ago

Unfortunately like most platforms with no censorship they are over run by racism and incels. They eventually run out of money and shut down. What a terrible business model.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
How do you know ? How much of the network have you seen, since it's based on wifi and bt?

mrunseen 5y ago

Reminds me of North Korea’s very own Red Star OS’ watermarking of the files. Starts at 34:55 https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7174-lifting_the_fog_on_red_star_os#t=2094 https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7174-lifting_the_fog_on_red_star... TLDW: Operating system appends hash everytime the file is copied, making it possible to track the original source of file without requiring another tracking mechanism (ie. internet)