8 ms·

This looks like a great project, thank you. One aspect of censorship resistance is the ability for people to publish and read content anonymously (or pseudonym

This looks like a great project, thank you. One aspect of censorship resistance is the ability for people to publish and read content anonymously (or pseudonymously). Could you add something to the README about that threat model? Also, I see that your IRC channel is hosted on Freenode. That seems an odd choice for a project that is opposed to censorship. Please consider a network with a better track record in that regard.

publiush 5y ago
Thank you! It doesn't actually allow you to publish and read anonymously without Tor or a VPN, but I will definitely recommend using both of those on the README. I do want to be careful about what is and isn't claimed, as I believe the world has become a bit dissatisfied with overclaims from decentralization projects lately. I don't think I've come to the same conclusion about freenode (https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/ https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/), and IRC is only decentralized if there isn't just one network anyway. I also don't think this is the right forum for this anyhow! You're definitely free to setup the same channel (#scarywater) on another network, and I'd be happy to be present there as well!
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > I don't think I've come to the same conclusion about freenode (https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/ https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/) This article really obscures some facts. For example, it implies that Lee was the person providing for freenode, when in fact he was just one of many donors: most servers in the network were donated by non-profits. Likewise, the article says Freenode operators were not staff because they were not paid: they still donated their time and resources to keeping the network alive. Also, it says Freenode was "taken over" by Christel, which to my knowledge is not exactly correct: from my understanding, she was indeed granted responsibilities, but was not supposed to govern (as in, give orders) to the network. Also, most of the drama took place after this article was published. Many chans which remained on Freenode were pushed out by the new management who seemingly ran regexes on all incoming messages, automatically taking over or banning any chan which had mentions of libera.chat. That is, until new management actually dropped the entire database (a huge "fuck you" to the faithful who remained) and started again from scratch. All in all, Freenode's story is one of a collective project run by volunteers on their donated time/hardware turned into a top-down startup. It also seems the freenode.net homepage has been turned into some kind of newsboard without a lot of people but where lots of content appears to be "deleted". Strange new world: https://freenode.net/n/freenode/57/there-are-literally-78-users-in-this-website-lmao https://freenode.net/n/freenode/57/there-are-literally-78-us... > IRC is only decentralized if there isn't just one network anyway. Not exactly, as there is server-to-server federation to distribute the load (but it's not exactly decentralized in this case). But yes, decentralizing is better. But there's plenty of IRC servers where to host your chans: OFTC, tilde.chat, indymedia, hackint...
  - rasengan 5y ago
    Hi, so I’m Andrew Lee and can definitely comment on this as I’m directly involved: > For example, it implies that Lee was the person providing for freenode, when in fact he was just one of many donors: most servers in the network were donated by non-profits You’re right, there were other server donors who provided servers on the network. However, the donations I provided were on a different order of magnitude financially. I provided many servers, of course, but also 7 figure funding [1]. That said, I’m definitely thankful for the server providers who were providing servers to us and continue to. > Also, it says Freenode was "taken over" by Christel All documentation both publicly and internally would refute this - Christel was fully in charge and the former staff was aware since it was explicitly written in the onboarding documents and on the website. Also, Tomaw was fully aware of this as well as of my ownership of freenode. > Also, most of the drama took place after this article was published. Again, untrue. Tomaw and I were in discussion and he was holding the network hostage for over a month prior to the article. prawnsalad of KiwiIRC and Snoonet was mediating and had had enough of Tomaw [2]. > All in all, Freenode's story is one of a collective project run by volunteers on their donated time/hardware turned into a top-down startup. I think there is a misconception of the difficulty in running an IRC network. Given I have been a staff member off and on of other networks and continue to be on several, including on the coding teams, I can assure you that nobody would say this is a difficult time consuming thing. It’s not like open source code contribution. Secondly, several members received monetary benefits - from me - in the form of flights, hotels, etc. like at DEFCON for example. The same people have looked me in the eye and said thank you before turning around and making up stories in a brazen attempt to slander me to take freenode. Not very upstanding people. I think it’s pretty clear what they cared about when you review Libera months later and see that it’s a closed group run by the former freenode staffers, and they are now the oligarchs of Libera. Finally, stop trying to force or pressure people to leave freenode. You’re acting like the Libera staff who actually spent months writing open source projects with the same falsehoods asking them to leave. It’s a form of censorship but worse it’s bullying. As for me and freenode, we have been in legal discussion to truly decentralize the network and give it to the people - and that is what is happening. I have always been the custodian and financial supporter supporting freenode, even when the former staff was facing legal action from users who they had harassed, so this isn’t outside of my resume and track record - I obviously care about it deeply. Freenode will belong to the people where it belongs, not the former staffers hands. [1] http://techrights.org/2021/05/22/freenode-misinformation-or-misunderstandings/ http://techrights.org/2021/05/22/freenode-misinformation-or-... [2] https://gist.github.com/prawnsalad/4ca20da6c2295ddb06c1646791c61953 https://gist.github.com/prawnsalad/4ca20da6c2295ddb06c164679...
- rakoo 5y ago
  Be careful about the integration with Tor, they explicitly discourage the use of torrents (since they're so heavy they make the whole network slower)
schleck8 5y ago
> censorship resistance Can someone tell me what is going to happen if let's say a terror group decides to use this for propaganda purposes, along the lines of religious fundamentalism/executions as we've witnessed before? Who is going to take the blame for providing them with what is advertised as an unblockable platform? Has abuse even been factored in?
- publiush 5y ago
  This is an important debate that comes up all too often. I do think this is the proper forum for this, so I'm glad you brought this up and I would be happy to share my thoughts. The more information people have had in the history of humanity, the more freedoms and liberties we have also had. We would likely still be living in monarchies if not for the spread of information -- North Korea is a prime example. If information is good and people agree with it, they will consume it and the swarm will be well seeded and public consensus will have spoken. If information is bad and people disagree with it, they won't consume it and the swarm will be sparse at best, at which point, it will be easy for ISPs and others to block access to these swarms. Torrents have been around for a long time, but terrorists haven't really utilized them much. On the other hand, anime really has to give its thanks to Bram haha. Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check. The same goes for information or discourse and the 1st amendment. The day we censor ourselves is the day we throw away liberty.
  - schleck8 5y ago
    > Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st century. It should be monitored who acquires an assault rifle. Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally[1], because gun owners are either mentally unstable themselves or not capable of preventing a mentally unstable person from getting hold of the rifle due to a lack or knowledge. Licenses make just as much sense as they do for cars. Which brings me to the division of powers. The constitution balances executive, legislature and judiciary in its three articles. It is very difficult for either of these organs to abuse power without being met with a restriction. This has been the concept since the very beginning, as you surely know judging by the gh handle, and you bet the federalist paper authors favored an institutional solution over arming each citizen. In other words, the second ammendement is just as little of an ultimate for checks and balances as the web 3 is for whistleblowing. We already have securedrop and globalleaks. Going a step further is possible, but not strictly necessary, and should not be treated as such in my opinion. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-shootings-g7-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-sh...

publiush 5y ago

Thank you! It doesn't actually allow you to publish and read anonymously without Tor or a VPN, but I will definitely recommend using both of those on the README. I do want to be careful about what is and isn't claimed, as I believe the world has become a bit dissatisfied with overclaims from decentralization projects lately. I don't think I've come to the same conclusion about freenode (https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/ https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/), and IRC is only decentralized if there isn't just one network anyway. I also don't think this is the right forum for this anyhow! You're definitely free to setup the same channel (#scarywater) on another network, and I'd be happy to be present there as well!

southerntofu 5y ago
> I don't think I've come to the same conclusion about freenode (https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/ https://news.itsfoss.com/freenode-controversy/) This article really obscures some facts. For example, it implies that Lee was the person providing for freenode, when in fact he was just one of many donors: most servers in the network were donated by non-profits. Likewise, the article says Freenode operators were not staff because they were not paid: they still donated their time and resources to keeping the network alive. Also, it says Freenode was "taken over" by Christel, which to my knowledge is not exactly correct: from my understanding, she was indeed granted responsibilities, but was not supposed to govern (as in, give orders) to the network. Also, most of the drama took place after this article was published. Many chans which remained on Freenode were pushed out by the new management who seemingly ran regexes on all incoming messages, automatically taking over or banning any chan which had mentions of libera.chat. That is, until new management actually dropped the entire database (a huge "fuck you" to the faithful who remained) and started again from scratch. All in all, Freenode's story is one of a collective project run by volunteers on their donated time/hardware turned into a top-down startup. It also seems the freenode.net homepage has been turned into some kind of newsboard without a lot of people but where lots of content appears to be "deleted". Strange new world: https://freenode.net/n/freenode/57/there-are-literally-78-users-in-this-website-lmao https://freenode.net/n/freenode/57/there-are-literally-78-us... > IRC is only decentralized if there isn't just one network anyway. Not exactly, as there is server-to-server federation to distribute the load (but it's not exactly decentralized in this case). But yes, decentralizing is better. But there's plenty of IRC servers where to host your chans: OFTC, tilde.chat, indymedia, hackint...
- rasengan 5y ago
  Hi, so I’m Andrew Lee and can definitely comment on this as I’m directly involved: > For example, it implies that Lee was the person providing for freenode, when in fact he was just one of many donors: most servers in the network were donated by non-profits You’re right, there were other server donors who provided servers on the network. However, the donations I provided were on a different order of magnitude financially. I provided many servers, of course, but also 7 figure funding [1]. That said, I’m definitely thankful for the server providers who were providing servers to us and continue to. > Also, it says Freenode was "taken over" by Christel All documentation both publicly and internally would refute this - Christel was fully in charge and the former staff was aware since it was explicitly written in the onboarding documents and on the website. Also, Tomaw was fully aware of this as well as of my ownership of freenode. > Also, most of the drama took place after this article was published. Again, untrue. Tomaw and I were in discussion and he was holding the network hostage for over a month prior to the article. prawnsalad of KiwiIRC and Snoonet was mediating and had had enough of Tomaw [2]. > All in all, Freenode's story is one of a collective project run by volunteers on their donated time/hardware turned into a top-down startup. I think there is a misconception of the difficulty in running an IRC network. Given I have been a staff member off and on of other networks and continue to be on several, including on the coding teams, I can assure you that nobody would say this is a difficult time consuming thing. It’s not like open source code contribution. Secondly, several members received monetary benefits - from me - in the form of flights, hotels, etc. like at DEFCON for example. The same people have looked me in the eye and said thank you before turning around and making up stories in a brazen attempt to slander me to take freenode. Not very upstanding people. I think it’s pretty clear what they cared about when you review Libera months later and see that it’s a closed group run by the former freenode staffers, and they are now the oligarchs of Libera. Finally, stop trying to force or pressure people to leave freenode. You’re acting like the Libera staff who actually spent months writing open source projects with the same falsehoods asking them to leave. It’s a form of censorship but worse it’s bullying. As for me and freenode, we have been in legal discussion to truly decentralize the network and give it to the people - and that is what is happening. I have always been the custodian and financial supporter supporting freenode, even when the former staff was facing legal action from users who they had harassed, so this isn’t outside of my resume and track record - I obviously care about it deeply. Freenode will belong to the people where it belongs, not the former staffers hands. [1] http://techrights.org/2021/05/22/freenode-misinformation-or-misunderstandings/ http://techrights.org/2021/05/22/freenode-misinformation-or-... [2] https://gist.github.com/prawnsalad/4ca20da6c2295ddb06c1646791c61953 https://gist.github.com/prawnsalad/4ca20da6c2295ddb06c164679...
rakoo 5y ago
Be careful about the integration with Tor, they explicitly discourage the use of torrents (since they're so heavy they make the whole network slower)

schleck8 5y ago

> censorship resistance Can someone tell me what is going to happen if let's say a terror group decides to use this for propaganda purposes, along the lines of religious fundamentalism/executions as we've witnessed before? Who is going to take the blame for providing them with what is advertised as an unblockable platform? Has abuse even been factored in?

publiush 5y ago
This is an important debate that comes up all too often. I do think this is the proper forum for this, so I'm glad you brought this up and I would be happy to share my thoughts. The more information people have had in the history of humanity, the more freedoms and liberties we have also had. We would likely still be living in monarchies if not for the spread of information -- North Korea is a prime example. If information is good and people agree with it, they will consume it and the swarm will be well seeded and public consensus will have spoken. If information is bad and people disagree with it, they won't consume it and the swarm will be sparse at best, at which point, it will be easy for ISPs and others to block access to these swarms. Torrents have been around for a long time, but terrorists haven't really utilized them much. On the other hand, anime really has to give its thanks to Bram haha. Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check. The same goes for information or discourse and the 1st amendment. The day we censor ourselves is the day we throw away liberty.
- schleck8 5y ago
  > Just because there are gun abusers, you wouldn't want to take away the 2nd amendment which keeps the government in check I don't think this is a good comparison. The second ammendment was appended in 1791 if I'm not mistaken, i. e. shortly after the war for independence on american soil against an empire, which was fought with militias (hence the third ammendement). That's a totally different scenario than the 21st century. It should be monitored who acquires an assault rifle. Or you end up with the highest rate of school amok per capita globally[1], because gun owners are either mentally unstable themselves or not capable of preventing a mentally unstable person from getting hold of the rifle due to a lack or knowledge. Licenses make just as much sense as they do for cars. Which brings me to the division of powers. The constitution balances executive, legislature and judiciary in its three articles. It is very difficult for either of these organs to abuse power without being met with a restriction. This has been the concept since the very beginning, as you surely know judging by the gh handle, and you bet the federalist paper authors favored an institutional solution over arming each citizen. In other words, the second ammendement is just as little of an ultimate for checks and balances as the web 3 is for whistleblowing. We already have securedrop and globalleaks. Going a step further is possible, but not strictly necessary, and should not be treated as such in my opinion. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-shootings-g7-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1155011/number-school-sh...