4 ms·

> You can't communicate without twitter? I think that GP was talking about mass communication, specifically the receiving part. Communication can be broken do

> You can't communicate without twitter? I think that GP was talking about mass communication, specifically the receiving part. Communication can be broken down into 3 parts: Sending the message, & receiving the message. Sending the message is straightforward & more or less a solved problem. Receiving the message is different depending on whether it's only for one/(a few) people or the general public: The former's also a solved problem, & can be made censorship resistant and tamperproof. The current unsolved problem is broadcasting a message out to the general public whilst being censorship resistant.

tjoff 4y ago
Microsoft solved this with the likes of winpopup and net send decades ago...
- x-complexity 4y ago
  1) > > Sending the message is straightforward & more or less a solved problem. 2) > > Receiving the message is different depending on whether it's only for one/(a few) people or the general public: The former's also a solved problem, & can be made censorship resistant and tamperproof. 3) > > The current unsolved problem is broadcasting a message out to the general public whilst being censorship resistant. > Microsoft solved this with the likes of winpopup and net send decades ago... (This is in direct response to the parent supposedly replying to (3)) https://winpopup-lan-messenger.com/ https://winpopup-lan-messenger.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Messenger_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Messenger_service The listed solutions only solve (1) and (2), and only in specific circumstances: (3) has still not been fully solved in a censorship resistant manner. winpopup & net send are only applicable to the devices within a LAN, whilst the solution for (3) needs to be abe to broadcast to everyone in the public space (including people outside of the LAN). To reiterate: For (3) to be solved, the proposed solution needs to give their users the ability to receive *publicly* broadcasted messages whilst being censorship resistant. -1 to parent.
  - tjoff 4y ago
    It was tongue in cheek to highlight the problems associated with it. Twitter by no means even attempts to solve this so it is hard to imagine what you are trying to imply. It is also kind of irrelevant. Because if it worked it wouldn't be usable, you can't let anyone broadcast to anyone it would be spammed to death - something that has been demonstrated with net send. If by broadcast you mean publish that becomes another thing, but that just creates a needle people need to find. And twitter is not a good solution to that either, even if it was censorship resistant. So again, your point is rather muddy.

tjoff 4y ago

Microsoft solved this with the likes of winpopup and net send decades ago...

x-complexity 4y ago
1) > > Sending the message is straightforward & more or less a solved problem. 2) > > Receiving the message is different depending on whether it's only for one/(a few) people or the general public: The former's also a solved problem, & can be made censorship resistant and tamperproof. 3) > > The current unsolved problem is broadcasting a message out to the general public whilst being censorship resistant. > Microsoft solved this with the likes of winpopup and net send decades ago... (This is in direct response to the parent supposedly replying to (3)) https://winpopup-lan-messenger.com/ https://winpopup-lan-messenger.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Messenger_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Messenger_service The listed solutions only solve (1) and (2), and only in specific circumstances: (3) has still not been fully solved in a censorship resistant manner. winpopup & net send are only applicable to the devices within a LAN, whilst the solution for (3) needs to be abe to broadcast to everyone in the public space (including people outside of the LAN). To reiterate: For (3) to be solved, the proposed solution needs to give their users the ability to receive *publicly* broadcasted messages whilst being censorship resistant. -1 to parent.
- tjoff 4y ago
  It was tongue in cheek to highlight the problems associated with it. Twitter by no means even attempts to solve this so it is hard to imagine what you are trying to imply. It is also kind of irrelevant. Because if it worked it wouldn't be usable, you can't let anyone broadcast to anyone it would be spammed to death - something that has been demonstrated with net send. If by broadcast you mean publish that becomes another thing, but that just creates a needle people need to find. And twitter is not a good solution to that either, even if it was censorship resistant. So again, your point is rather muddy.