4 ms·

There's a pro and con to this. Pro is, if the rights holders win, it may fan the flames of decentralized naming schemes and alternate roots, and start crystall

There's a pro and con to this. Pro is, if the rights holders win, it may fan the flames of decentralized naming schemes and alternate roots, and start crystallizing the need for a free internet in people's minds. Con, of course, is that this is not going to be enough, and the next target is going to be the routers themselves. Your ISP will need to do deep packet inspection like what occurs in India and other countries. Then that won't be enough, and you'll have to give a root of trust to your ISP, so they can read and censor your encrypted streams. And all the while, trusted computing will be spreading in the background, stamping out anything not aligned with corporate and government interests.

stingraycharles 4y ago
> Pro is, if the rights holders win, it may fan the flames of decentralized naming schemes and alternate roots, and start crystallizing the need for a free internet in people's minds. Hasn’t the main trend of the past few decades been that, despite limiting our freedoms, everything gets more and more centralized, mainly because it’s more reliable / convenient / cheaper ? I’m doubtful in DNS ever being replaced with an even more decentralized version. It’s already one of the most decentralized protocols widely in use right now, and the trend has clearly been more centralization of DNS, not less.
- dividedbyzero 4y ago
  I guess it would be both, like with Linux on phones and desktops as a reaction to proprietary OSes becoming more restrictive – it fans the flames for LibreDNS and Stallmann-approved Gnu-DNS in some circles like the privacy-conscious subset of HN, and some of those actually use it where possible, but overall they are an inconsequential rounding error, and everyone else gets centralized and non-overridable SecureDNS™.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    nothing occurs in a vacuum; as has been well-described here, when Freedoms are fringe, then Freedom-minded people get the strange bedfellows of actually depraved and actually criminal, while the Law-and-Order people isolate themselves and their populations with distrust, circular-restrictions and unchangeable rules. Its not the active people, its the bandwagon that the active people have to live with as a social consequence
- causi 4y ago
  mainly because it’s more reliable / convenient / cheaper ? And as a consequence the user population on average becomes more ignorant, less likely to care, and less technically capable. It's one thing to crush internet freedom when half your users are programmers. It's entirely different when half your users don't know what a "file extension" is.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
No need for decentralised naming schemes, alternate roots or targeting routers with DPI. This article describes only orders against third party DNS providers, not authoritative DNS servers. Perhaps the censors are interested in restricting resolution of certain names by third party DoH providers. Regardless, failure to remove the names from the applicable registries will mean the names can still be looked up, using nonrecursive queries.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Welp, UUCP still works.
Asooka 4y ago
What I imagine will happen is that kids will share hosts files over discord with the IPs of banned sites.

stingraycharles 4y ago

> Pro is, if the rights holders win, it may fan the flames of decentralized naming schemes and alternate roots, and start crystallizing the need for a free internet in people's minds. Hasn’t the main trend of the past few decades been that, despite limiting our freedoms, everything gets more and more centralized, mainly because it’s more reliable / convenient / cheaper ? I’m doubtful in DNS ever being replaced with an even more decentralized version. It’s already one of the most decentralized protocols widely in use right now, and the trend has clearly been more centralization of DNS, not less.

dividedbyzero 4y ago
I guess it would be both, like with Linux on phones and desktops as a reaction to proprietary OSes becoming more restrictive – it fans the flames for LibreDNS and Stallmann-approved Gnu-DNS in some circles like the privacy-conscious subset of HN, and some of those actually use it where possible, but overall they are an inconsequential rounding error, and everyone else gets centralized and non-overridable SecureDNS™.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  nothing occurs in a vacuum; as has been well-described here, when Freedoms are fringe, then Freedom-minded people get the strange bedfellows of actually depraved and actually criminal, while the Law-and-Order people isolate themselves and their populations with distrust, circular-restrictions and unchangeable rules. Its not the active people, its the bandwagon that the active people have to live with as a social consequence
causi 4y ago
mainly because it’s more reliable / convenient / cheaper ? And as a consequence the user population on average becomes more ignorant, less likely to care, and less technically capable. It's one thing to crush internet freedom when half your users are programmers. It's entirely different when half your users don't know what a "file extension" is.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

No need for decentralised naming schemes, alternate roots or targeting routers with DPI. This article describes only orders against third party DNS providers, not authoritative DNS servers. Perhaps the censors are interested in restricting resolution of certain names by third party DoH providers. Regardless, failure to remove the names from the applicable registries will mean the names can still be looked up, using nonrecursive queries.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

Welp, UUCP still works.

Asooka 4y ago

What I imagine will happen is that kids will share hosts files over discord with the IPs of banned sites.