5 ms·

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

by janoc 3y ago

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
You're right. When I think of 'decentralized', and what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against.
- ilyt 3y ago
  And a way to fight spam. You don't want users to be too anonymous, else someone can just post bullshit with zero ways to fight it.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Well, we just need a way to have reputation, basically. It shouldn't be karma, but it needs to be something that doesn't require linking to a real life identity.
- shagie 3y ago
  Anonymity isn't necessary desirable for the people running the servers - it means extra work for people attempting to moderate the content on their instance. There are numerous other discussions about why a lack of moderation is often a bad thing for people running the servers. Take down orders are resisted by having it sufficiently decentralized. It may be possible to take down one server, but taking down every server (even trying to take down every NNTP server in today's world) is a significant effort. Usenet is a perfectly acceptable decentralized system for sending messages to each other and the world. Stand one up with the groups that I'm interested in and I'll point my copy of trn at it.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Anonymity is key in the sense that it shouldn't require linking to a real life identity. The same way now I can sign up for reddit 'anonymously' for example. There should be some reputation, some kind of check the person is human, maybe other things, but there needs to be the freedom to post separate from a real life persona, without fear of being doxxed. For so many different reasons. Usenet, I think, has a strong hierarchy structure rather than just being a 'web', although it is that as well. So if the takedown order is directed at a server in high enough position, it is essentially removes it from all of Usenet - and it's not just takedown orders, but actors with the ability to remove content unilaterally. Usenet really isn't sufficient simply because of how old it is. We can do much better, and I believe there are already numerous superior systems that exist but simply have not been adopted yet, likely due to ease of use and/or lack of need, the former can be improved, and the latter will happen naturally.
    - shagie 3y ago
      > Usenet, I think, has a strong hierarchy structure rather than just being a 'web', although it is that as well. So if the takedown order is directed at a server in high enough position, it is essentially removes it from all of Usenet - and it's not just takedown orders, but actors with the ability to remove content unilaterally. There were some sites that had bigger pipes and more tolerance for storage requirements than others, and it was thus easier to peer to one of those big ones to route posts that would get out everywhere else faster - but there wasn't any hierarchy as such. The hierarchy of unset was in the naming - not the organization of how things were routed nor for a "who controls that." There is no lumber cartel forcing spammers to print out things and buy paper. However, if a site misbehaves often enough it gets shunned sufficiently through per user kill files and admins not accepting posts that originated or passed through some server. If you were to take down a big server that lots of people routed through, they'd route around it or another would take its place. Taking down The Pirate Bay didn't stop bit torrent.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > but there wasn't any hierarchy as such. My memory was that smaller ISPs would peer from the larger ISPs, that's the type of hierarchy I was thinking of. Maybe not in design, but in practice.
        shagie 3y ago
        That's a matter of pipes and storage. They could peer to each other. There were a number of private hierarchies (including my favorite - the bofh.* one) that had different peering relationships. http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=private http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=pr... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220815151921/http://bofh.taronga.com/bofh.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220815151921/http://bofh.taron... Peering to larger ISPs was more of a matter of convince and that is often part of a business arrangement for a company and a client. Another use of usenet back in the day SGI had its bug tracker write out to news. A Usenet reader was one of the preferred interfaces to creating and commenting on bugs internally. Furthermore, exporting the bug tracking system to a partner was "simply" a matter of adding them to the feed and making sure that they didn't route bugs from their server to others. The point is that the "little to big to bigger" was just convince - not code or enforced in any way. Many university CS departments would peer with each other back in the day. Recall that news was originally across UUCP - the same mechanism that email was sent. If you wanted to send email to someone at another university you'd much rather have them as a peer so that it was just one hop rather than going some other route that could take days to get there. And so various hub and spokes evolved. Everything in the University of Wisconsin peered with Madison. Everything in Illinois peered with UIUC and Madison peered with UIUC. Note the word 'peer'. And if UW Whitewater wanted to get their email to UIC faster, then they would peer too. Would UW Madison complain that it's not going through them? Not at all! It meant their phone bills would be less.
- jjav 3y ago
  > what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against. Who would you issue a takedown order on a Usenet post? Remember it's peer to peer distribution. There is no central repository.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    The ISP, and most people tend use use one of a few large ISPs.
    - jjav 3y ago
      An ISP can run a Usenet node and many did, but that's in no way necessary or inherent to Usenet. It is entirely peer to peer distributed. You can run your own with multiple unrelated peers for redundancy. I used to do that for most of the early 90s, it works great. There is no central repository anywhere. An analogy is to say email is centralized because may people use gmail. Yes many people do but that's in no way necessary. Everyone can run their own if they like. For the entire decade of the 90s through several employers, I never was part of an organization which even had a central email server! Everyone sent and received email directly to/from their personal workstation.
- janoc 3y ago
  Sorry but anonymity and resistance to takedown orders is not solvable by technology. What you are asking for is basically for tech to let you violate applicable laws. Whether the law is good or bad is another story but as long as that law is in force this sort of requirement is a mirage. Server operators don't exist and live in a vacuum, when they get services blocked, servers seized and prison sentences imposed for not cooperating with lawfully issued orders (such as a subpoeana to identify a criminal using the service), then what? All that is happening already. If you want to deal with unlawful orders of this kind or abuse by the authorities then the technology is the wrong battlefield to fight this. This has to be done in parliaments, not server rooms.

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

by janoc 3y ago

Usenet was literally decentralized before this was even a buzzword.

You're right. When I think of 'decentralized', and what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against.

ilyt 3y ago
And a way to fight spam. You don't want users to be too anonymous, else someone can just post bullshit with zero ways to fight it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Well, we just need a way to have reputation, basically. It shouldn't be karma, but it needs to be something that doesn't require linking to a real life identity.
shagie 3y ago
Anonymity isn't necessary desirable for the people running the servers - it means extra work for people attempting to moderate the content on their instance. There are numerous other discussions about why a lack of moderation is often a bad thing for people running the servers. Take down orders are resisted by having it sufficiently decentralized. It may be possible to take down one server, but taking down every server (even trying to take down every NNTP server in today's world) is a significant effort. Usenet is a perfectly acceptable decentralized system for sending messages to each other and the world. Stand one up with the groups that I'm interested in and I'll point my copy of trn at it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Anonymity is key in the sense that it shouldn't require linking to a real life identity. The same way now I can sign up for reddit 'anonymously' for example. There should be some reputation, some kind of check the person is human, maybe other things, but there needs to be the freedom to post separate from a real life persona, without fear of being doxxed. For so many different reasons. Usenet, I think, has a strong hierarchy structure rather than just being a 'web', although it is that as well. So if the takedown order is directed at a server in high enough position, it is essentially removes it from all of Usenet - and it's not just takedown orders, but actors with the ability to remove content unilaterally. Usenet really isn't sufficient simply because of how old it is. We can do much better, and I believe there are already numerous superior systems that exist but simply have not been adopted yet, likely due to ease of use and/or lack of need, the former can be improved, and the latter will happen naturally.
  - shagie 3y ago
    > Usenet, I think, has a strong hierarchy structure rather than just being a 'web', although it is that as well. So if the takedown order is directed at a server in high enough position, it is essentially removes it from all of Usenet - and it's not just takedown orders, but actors with the ability to remove content unilaterally. There were some sites that had bigger pipes and more tolerance for storage requirements than others, and it was thus easier to peer to one of those big ones to route posts that would get out everywhere else faster - but there wasn't any hierarchy as such. The hierarchy of unset was in the naming - not the organization of how things were routed nor for a "who controls that." There is no lumber cartel forcing spammers to print out things and buy paper. However, if a site misbehaves often enough it gets shunned sufficiently through per user kill files and admins not accepting posts that originated or passed through some server. If you were to take down a big server that lots of people routed through, they'd route around it or another would take its place. Taking down The Pirate Bay didn't stop bit torrent.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > but there wasn't any hierarchy as such. My memory was that smaller ISPs would peer from the larger ISPs, that's the type of hierarchy I was thinking of. Maybe not in design, but in practice.
      - shagie 3y ago
        That's a matter of pipes and storage. They could peer to each other. There were a number of private hierarchies (including my favorite - the bofh.* one) that had different peering relationships. http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=private http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?status=pr... and https://web.archive.org/web/20220815151921/http://bofh.taronga.com/bofh.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220815151921/http://bofh.taron... Peering to larger ISPs was more of a matter of convince and that is often part of a business arrangement for a company and a client. Another use of usenet back in the day SGI had its bug tracker write out to news. A Usenet reader was one of the preferred interfaces to creating and commenting on bugs internally. Furthermore, exporting the bug tracking system to a partner was "simply" a matter of adding them to the feed and making sure that they didn't route bugs from their server to others. The point is that the "little to big to bigger" was just convince - not code or enforced in any way. Many university CS departments would peer with each other back in the day. Recall that news was originally across UUCP - the same mechanism that email was sent. If you wanted to send email to someone at another university you'd much rather have them as a peer so that it was just one hop rather than going some other route that could take days to get there. And so various hub and spokes evolved. Everything in the University of Wisconsin peered with Madison. Everything in Illinois peered with UIUC and Madison peered with UIUC. Note the word 'peer'. And if UW Whitewater wanted to get their email to UIC faster, then they would peer too. Would UW Madison complain that it's not going through them? Not at all! It meant their phone bills would be less.
jjav 3y ago
> what I meant, was something offering anonymity and resistance to takedown orders, which are things it didn't have real protection against. Who would you issue a takedown order on a Usenet post? Remember it's peer to peer distribution. There is no central repository.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  The ISP, and most people tend use use one of a few large ISPs.
  - jjav 3y ago
    An ISP can run a Usenet node and many did, but that's in no way necessary or inherent to Usenet. It is entirely peer to peer distributed. You can run your own with multiple unrelated peers for redundancy. I used to do that for most of the early 90s, it works great. There is no central repository anywhere. An analogy is to say email is centralized because may people use gmail. Yes many people do but that's in no way necessary. Everyone can run their own if they like. For the entire decade of the 90s through several employers, I never was part of an organization which even had a central email server! Everyone sent and received email directly to/from their personal workstation.
janoc 3y ago
Sorry but anonymity and resistance to takedown orders is not solvable by technology. What you are asking for is basically for tech to let you violate applicable laws. Whether the law is good or bad is another story but as long as that law is in force this sort of requirement is a mirage. Server operators don't exist and live in a vacuum, when they get services blocked, servers seized and prison sentences imposed for not cooperating with lawfully issued orders (such as a subpoeana to identify a criminal using the service), then what? All that is happening already. If you want to deal with unlawful orders of this kind or abuse by the authorities then the technology is the wrong battlefield to fight this. This has to be done in parliaments, not server rooms.