5 ms·

It would have been a godsend when I was still academic. This and sci-hub. The way they eviscerated the service makes clear that in general we need more robust

It would have been a godsend when I was still academic. This and sci-hub. The way they eviscerated the service makes clear that in general we need more robust web services. Tor is not ideal for this, onions are excellent and fill their niche really well. But we need something simpler here.

boxed 4y ago
What is needed is a strong government for the people, by the people. Without that, it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together.
- vegetablepotpie 4y ago
  That doesn’t happen because most people can’t or won’t participate in government. This is because many government meetings are held during the day, during working hours, usually in places far from the individuals affected. The people who do show up are independently wealthy, retirees, and people being paid to represent an organization. Representitive government doesn’t, and cannot represent the people.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    The founding vision of the US was one where the further away government was from the people, the less impact it would have on their lives. The Federal government was to have an extremely limited role in society, largely tasked with things such as international relations. Your day to day would primarily be affect by your state, and ideally on downward with a further delegation of responsibilities getting closer and closer to you. This also helps curtail corruption. It is ostensibly easier to coerce/bribe/etc a state than a nation, but you have to do this for every single state and then try to keep them all under your thumb. A federal government may ostensibly be harder to corrupt, but once corrupted they can affect your whims on a national level and be relatively easier to maintain control of. This decentralization of power seems to be the easiest way to have a functioning political system. It's always the same decision. Centralization paired with selflessness, benevolence, and competence will trend towards utopia. Centralization paired with selfishness, greed, or incompetence will trend towards dystopia. Decentralization will always just trend towards mediocrity as a mish mash of the averages of society.
    - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
      It's almost as if the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they created a decentralized federalized system and we've screwed it up pretty badly by centralizing power in the Federal Government.
    - starkd 4y ago
      If given a choice, I think I would opt for the "decentralization with a mishmash of the averages of society" over a dystopia. The "centralization with selflessness, benevolence, and competence" path toward utopia seems like wishful thinking to me. You can never legislate morality, and without a non-secular religion as a guide, a default moral people is not a reasonable expectation.
    - whoknew1122 4y ago
      The founders were also deathly afraid of a standing army. This is why a defense authorization bill is passed every two years. People might debate how much money should be put toward defense spending, but few people would argue that we should dissolve the military and call up citizens only when conflict happens. They also explicitly dismissed the idea of one person, one vote. And this all ignores the fact that there wasn't a singular, cohesive founding vision. Alexander Hamilton, for example, argued for a strong federal government. With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s.
      - sieabahlpark 4y ago
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s. Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, your point seems completely off the mark and basically irrelevant. The current copyright regime is nothing like what was created by those men hundreds of years ago. In the late 18th century after the country was founded, copyright was limited to 14 years plus another 14 year extension if the author was still alive. Going back to that would be a great idea.
- WanderPanda 4y ago
  No we need a weak government such that it doesn‘t matter if it is for or against the people
  - sigzero 4y ago
    There is no such government or governmental system that would actually work like that.
  - boxed 4y ago
    And how would you enforce that over time? Perhaps... with a strong government? :P
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      No, with accountability of government officials if they err - What would today be dismissed as "Attacks on our nation's capitol"
      - boxed 4y ago
        What is this "accountability" you speak of? How exactly does it work? I hope you don't think "accountability" means some hill billies storming some offices and then going home having accomplished absolutely nothing, except in some cases going to jail.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  We're discussing an instance of regulatory capture. Granting the government more powers - that are available for special interests to capture - ends up digging an even deeper hole.
- rbanffy 4y ago
  > it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together. We need to be careful with that - it's one thing to make tools that help circumvent harmful behaviors, such as censorship and privacy violations, but rendering authorities unable to enforce laws (or forcing them to partially enforce them, based on who has and who hasn't technology protecting them) is not a desirable outcome.
synergy20 4y ago
aren't tor and onion pairs,why one not ideal while another excellent? confused.
- qwerty456127 4y ago
  Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites and their experience is not always pleasant.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites They still go through the onion circuit. I agree with the GP, distinction you're trying to make is unclear - Tor is a browser that uses onion circuits to access the web, including onion sites. Without onion, Tor is just another flavor of Firefox.
    - qwerty456127 4y ago
      The distinction is simple - slipping through an exit-node or staying within the Onion network. Doesn't this make sense? As far as I know I2P is better for the second kind of the job but apparently is not nearly as popular, sadly.
    - omniglottal 4y ago
      Tor is The Onion Router. It is precisely "the onion" you're referring to. It is not a browser. A browser or any other TCP-using software can route packets through the Tor network. Be careful when misinforming people like this.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        Technically, yes, Tor is The Onion Router, but everyone seems to refer to the official Tor Browser as "Tor", and to the Tor software as "onion". > Be careful when misinforming people like this. Who died and made you the captain of the truth police?
DoItToMe81 4y ago
Eviscerated? The onion is indistinguishable from the clearnet site, with the exception that you need to log in. Disposable mail makes account creation trivial.

boxed 4y ago

What is needed is a strong government for the people, by the people. Without that, it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together.

vegetablepotpie 4y ago
That doesn’t happen because most people can’t or won’t participate in government. This is because many government meetings are held during the day, during working hours, usually in places far from the individuals affected. The people who do show up are independently wealthy, retirees, and people being paid to represent an organization. Representitive government doesn’t, and cannot represent the people.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  The founding vision of the US was one where the further away government was from the people, the less impact it would have on their lives. The Federal government was to have an extremely limited role in society, largely tasked with things such as international relations. Your day to day would primarily be affect by your state, and ideally on downward with a further delegation of responsibilities getting closer and closer to you. This also helps curtail corruption. It is ostensibly easier to coerce/bribe/etc a state than a nation, but you have to do this for every single state and then try to keep them all under your thumb. A federal government may ostensibly be harder to corrupt, but once corrupted they can affect your whims on a national level and be relatively easier to maintain control of. This decentralization of power seems to be the easiest way to have a functioning political system. It's always the same decision. Centralization paired with selflessness, benevolence, and competence will trend towards utopia. Centralization paired with selfishness, greed, or incompetence will trend towards dystopia. Decentralization will always just trend towards mediocrity as a mish mash of the averages of society.
  - AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
    It's almost as if the framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they created a decentralized federalized system and we've screwed it up pretty badly by centralizing power in the Federal Government.
  - starkd 4y ago
    If given a choice, I think I would opt for the "decentralization with a mishmash of the averages of society" over a dystopia. The "centralization with selflessness, benevolence, and competence" path toward utopia seems like wishful thinking to me. You can never legislate morality, and without a non-secular religion as a guide, a default moral people is not a reasonable expectation.
  - whoknew1122 4y ago
    The founders were also deathly afraid of a standing army. This is why a defense authorization bill is passed every two years. People might debate how much money should be put toward defense spending, but few people would argue that we should dissolve the military and call up citizens only when conflict happens. They also explicitly dismissed the idea of one person, one vote. And this all ignores the fact that there wasn't a singular, cohesive founding vision. Alexander Hamilton, for example, argued for a strong federal government. With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s.
    - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > With all that said, we shouldn't be hamstrung by what a deeply flawed group of people decided in the late 1700s. Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, your point seems completely off the mark and basically irrelevant. The current copyright regime is nothing like what was created by those men hundreds of years ago. In the late 18th century after the country was founded, copyright was limited to 14 years plus another 14 year extension if the author was still alive. Going back to that would be a great idea.
WanderPanda 4y ago
No we need a weak government such that it doesn‘t matter if it is for or against the people
- sigzero 4y ago
  There is no such government or governmental system that would actually work like that.
- boxed 4y ago
  And how would you enforce that over time? Perhaps... with a strong government? :P
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    No, with accountability of government officials if they err - What would today be dismissed as "Attacks on our nation's capitol"
    - boxed 4y ago
      What is this "accountability" you speak of? How exactly does it work? I hope you don't think "accountability" means some hill billies storming some offices and then going home having accomplished absolutely nothing, except in some cases going to jail.
CWuestefeld 4y ago
We're discussing an instance of regulatory capture. Granting the government more powers - that are available for special interests to capture - ends up digging an even deeper hole.
rbanffy 4y ago
> it really doesn't matter what tech you can cobble together. We need to be careful with that - it's one thing to make tools that help circumvent harmful behaviors, such as censorship and privacy violations, but rendering authorities unable to enforce laws (or forcing them to partially enforce them, based on who has and who hasn't technology protecting them) is not a desirable outcome.

synergy20 4y ago

aren't tor and onion pairs,why one not ideal while another excellent? confused.

qwerty456127 4y ago
Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites and their experience is not always pleasant.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Because some people go through TOR to browse regular non-onion web sites They still go through the onion circuit. I agree with the GP, distinction you're trying to make is unclear - Tor is a browser that uses onion circuits to access the web, including onion sites. Without onion, Tor is just another flavor of Firefox.
  - qwerty456127 4y ago
    The distinction is simple - slipping through an exit-node or staying within the Onion network. Doesn't this make sense? As far as I know I2P is better for the second kind of the job but apparently is not nearly as popular, sadly.
  - omniglottal 4y ago
    Tor is The Onion Router. It is precisely "the onion" you're referring to. It is not a browser. A browser or any other TCP-using software can route packets through the Tor network. Be careful when misinforming people like this.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Technically, yes, Tor is The Onion Router, but everyone seems to refer to the official Tor Browser as "Tor", and to the Tor software as "onion". > Be careful when misinforming people like this. Who died and made you the captain of the truth police?

DoItToMe81 4y ago

Eviscerated? The onion is indistinguishable from the clearnet site, with the exception that you need to log in. Disposable mail makes account creation trivial.