4 ms·

> an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files They have: Freenet, I2P, Tor... none have ever really taken off, _be

> an easy to deploy, self-hosted, p2p encrypted platform allowing limited sharing of files They have: Freenet, I2P, Tor... none have ever really taken off, _because_ they can be used to circumvent government monitoring. At the end of the day, we'll submit to panopticon censorship because most of us _want_ panopticon censorship.

geostupid 2y ago
All hail Bentham!
squigz 2y ago
> At the end of the day, we'll submit to panopticon censorship because most of us _want_ panopticon censorship. This is a pretty big claim that I feel bears some explanation as to why you feel that way
- chrismarlow9 2y ago
  I don't have any hard evidence but anecdotally I can say that when Snowden, Cambridge Analytica, and really anything else in this space happens nobody I talk to outside of tech workers really cares. Most responses I get are jokes along the line of "of you mean they'll see the $15 in my bank account and offer to pay my electric?".
  - squigz 2y ago
    Many people have slightly more pressing things to worry about - such as having $15 in their bank account
    - chrismarlow9 2y ago
      I'm confused are you summarizing my comment?
      - squigz 2y ago
        No - but my impression was that you were attributing this to the theory GP was referring to and to which I replied.
        chrismarlow9 2y ago
        I see. Sorry the AI world had me paranoid for a second.
- ctrw 2y ago
  Pedophiles. Everyone hates the enough to justify anything up to and including public executions.
  - squigz 2y ago
    I... what... are you even talking about?
    - ctrw 2y ago
      Why people want more censorship and surveillance.
      - squigz 2y ago
        You think people want more censorship and surveillance because they're worried about pedophiles?
        ctrw 2y ago
        Think of the children has been a rallying cry for this since the 90s.
        jasonlotito 2y ago
        It comes back to the argument: "Why are you opposed to this? Do you have something to hide?" It's easy to paint this as an easy way to catch pedophiles. It doesn't matter if this is actually true or if these arguments really hold up, by they are easy quips that can be thrown out that aren't easily dismissed with an as easy to reply quip. Basically, the position comes down to: do you want to stop pedophiles, or do you want to make it easier for them to hide? And yes, you can rationalize all day long about how that's not accurate and this and that, but then your arguing that most people are willing to sift through al the data instead of just going with something that at first glance seems reasonable.
        venatiodecorus 2y ago
        Children's safety online has been an excuse for excessive surveillance for a long time. Not so long ago Apple was going to scan every file on your device for this reason.
93po 2y ago
If Freenet was as fast and as easy as browsing over regular internet and had just as much relevant content, I think everyone would use it. It's slow, sparse, and requires more effort to install and use, so people don't.
mindslight 2y ago
What are you saying is the actual mechanism of causality for people making personal software choices based on "wanting" panopticon censorship? I don't think it's "I'll be a good citizen and prefer software that allows surveillance". Unless by "most of us" you mean everyone taking home bags of money working for the surveillance industry in Surveillance Valley? The way I see it, centralized surveillable services promise lucrative investment returns based on monetizing user data, which attracts capital from the everything bubble seeking anywhere to go, which pays for an overwhelming amount of advertising that fakes social proof. And now that users have been trained to wantonly trust web browsers and shy away from native software, and the surveillance industry business model has been proven out, the situation is quite sticky.
unsupp0rted 2y ago
Stated another way: most of us don't care about panopticon censorship. As long as I can still post my lunch on Instagram and explain to LinkedIn how I organize my inbox, I don't mind if the NSA is watching.
- docmars 2y ago
  Suppose the political party you dislike is in power and starts using their surveillance capabilities to crack down on dissenting opinions shared on the Internet, and you spend time discussing those opinions because it's your right as a citizen to exercise your freedom of thought and speech, but they catch you and penalize you for what you dared to share (which would be a benign opinion), would you start opposing it? If it prevented your ability to speak freely about (and with) the candidates who represent your's and many others' wishes in a democracy, leading you to fear, would it become important to you? That's what it's being used for.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
chrisco255 2y ago
None of them have taken off because the UX sucks. Say what you will about open source development, Tor, P2P, IPFS, etc, it's an amazing achievement, but without great design and UX it will never take off. It needs to work cross platform, be designed beautifully, be consistent in speed, responsiveness, etc; have support and documentation; guaranteed uptime; work cross-device; integrate with modern services, etc etc. A long tail of features that users care about. Devs will ship 1/10th of the total package as free, open source and scratch their heads at why the users don't come to enjoy the freedom. As Steve Jobs said, "Design is how it works." And most of these solutions don't work for the average user.
- docmars 2y ago
  Agreed. Although I think the other side to this you touched on is building a stable, competitive business around this, that cannot be bought and paid for by corrupt government officials, and resistant to acquisitions by corporations that are already beholden to intelligence agencies to comply with their BS.

geostupid 2y ago

All hail Bentham!

squigz 2y ago

> At the end of the day, we'll submit to panopticon censorship because most of us _want_ panopticon censorship. This is a pretty big claim that I feel bears some explanation as to why you feel that way

chrismarlow9 2y ago
I don't have any hard evidence but anecdotally I can say that when Snowden, Cambridge Analytica, and really anything else in this space happens nobody I talk to outside of tech workers really cares. Most responses I get are jokes along the line of "of you mean they'll see the $15 in my bank account and offer to pay my electric?".
- squigz 2y ago
  Many people have slightly more pressing things to worry about - such as having $15 in their bank account
  - chrismarlow9 2y ago
    I'm confused are you summarizing my comment?
    - squigz 2y ago
      No - but my impression was that you were attributing this to the theory GP was referring to and to which I replied.
      - chrismarlow9 2y ago
        I see. Sorry the AI world had me paranoid for a second.
ctrw 2y ago
Pedophiles. Everyone hates the enough to justify anything up to and including public executions.
- squigz 2y ago
  I... what... are you even talking about?
  - ctrw 2y ago
    Why people want more censorship and surveillance.
    - squigz 2y ago
      You think people want more censorship and surveillance because they're worried about pedophiles?
      - ctrw 2y ago
        Think of the children has been a rallying cry for this since the 90s.
      - jasonlotito 2y ago
        It comes back to the argument: "Why are you opposed to this? Do you have something to hide?" It's easy to paint this as an easy way to catch pedophiles. It doesn't matter if this is actually true or if these arguments really hold up, by they are easy quips that can be thrown out that aren't easily dismissed with an as easy to reply quip. Basically, the position comes down to: do you want to stop pedophiles, or do you want to make it easier for them to hide? And yes, you can rationalize all day long about how that's not accurate and this and that, but then your arguing that most people are willing to sift through al the data instead of just going with something that at first glance seems reasonable.
      - venatiodecorus 2y ago
        Children's safety online has been an excuse for excessive surveillance for a long time. Not so long ago Apple was going to scan every file on your device for this reason.

93po 2y ago

If Freenet was as fast and as easy as browsing over regular internet and had just as much relevant content, I think everyone would use it. It's slow, sparse, and requires more effort to install and use, so people don't.

mindslight 2y ago

What are you saying is the actual mechanism of causality for people making personal software choices based on "wanting" panopticon censorship? I don't think it's "I'll be a good citizen and prefer software that allows surveillance". Unless by "most of us" you mean everyone taking home bags of money working for the surveillance industry in Surveillance Valley? The way I see it, centralized surveillable services promise lucrative investment returns based on monetizing user data, which attracts capital from the everything bubble seeking anywhere to go, which pays for an overwhelming amount of advertising that fakes social proof. And now that users have been trained to wantonly trust web browsers and shy away from native software, and the surveillance industry business model has been proven out, the situation is quite sticky.

unsupp0rted 2y ago

Stated another way: most of us don't care about panopticon censorship. As long as I can still post my lunch on Instagram and explain to LinkedIn how I organize my inbox, I don't mind if the NSA is watching.

docmars 2y ago
Suppose the political party you dislike is in power and starts using their surveillance capabilities to crack down on dissenting opinions shared on the Internet, and you spend time discussing those opinions because it's your right as a citizen to exercise your freedom of thought and speech, but they catch you and penalize you for what you dared to share (which would be a benign opinion), would you start opposing it? If it prevented your ability to speak freely about (and with) the candidates who represent your's and many others' wishes in a democracy, leading you to fear, would it become important to you? That's what it's being used for.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

chrisco255 2y ago

None of them have taken off because the UX sucks. Say what you will about open source development, Tor, P2P, IPFS, etc, it's an amazing achievement, but without great design and UX it will never take off. It needs to work cross platform, be designed beautifully, be consistent in speed, responsiveness, etc; have support and documentation; guaranteed uptime; work cross-device; integrate with modern services, etc etc. A long tail of features that users care about. Devs will ship 1/10th of the total package as free, open source and scratch their heads at why the users don't come to enjoy the freedom. As Steve Jobs said, "Design is how it works." And most of these solutions don't work for the average user.

docmars 2y ago
Agreed. Although I think the other side to this you touched on is building a stable, competitive business around this, that cannot be bought and paid for by corrupt government officials, and resistant to acquisitions by corporations that are already beholden to intelligence agencies to comply with their BS.