9 ms·

So how does freenet prevent the spreading of slander, libel, or otherwise abusive content? I understand not many places have an answer for this question, I'm w

So how does freenet prevent the spreading of slander, libel, or otherwise abusive content? I understand not many places have an answer for this question, I'm wondering if Freenet does yet. I'm asking this in good faith. I actually like Freenet.

generalizations 2y ago
I'd say that's the wrong priority to focus on in a project like this.
llm_trw 2y ago
Unfortunately until god comes down from heaven we have no way of figuring out what is slander, libel, or otherwise abusive content.
- dreamworld 2y ago
  That's called moderation, dude! :P I think some moderation is important so things don't get out of control.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    So do the Imans in Iran. Least they stop hanging homosexuals on cranes.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      You're mixing moderation with punishment outside of the platform. Those things are extremely different.
      - sph 2y ago
        No, they are exactly the same, but taken to their extreme, yet inherent evolution. Putting you in jail or hanging you for "illegal speech" are just two degrees of punishment for violating the laws of the land, as it were. The degree of punishment is just a cultural thing. The only question is one: are you free, or not? No one is forcing you to use free-speech platforms, but to criticize them you need to understand what freedom means in the first place.
        viraptor 2y ago
        This thread is not about jail, but preventing you from posting something on a specific platform. (Moderation) If you think that's exactly the same as hanging people, you need to talk to actual people outside...
        llm_trw 2y ago
        Again, the Imans would love to moderate your internet. They don't want to hang you for it. They just want you to never hear anything positive about homosexuality and the people they are hanging. Understanding this is very difficult for people who support their governments form of censorship, like everyone working at googleface.
        ArneBab 2y ago
        Did you see that there is nowadays information about abortion on the original Freenet (now Hyphanet)? I for sure did not expect that this would be needed for people in the USA. But that’s what happened.
        dreamworld 2y ago
        On the other hand, moderation can stop troll farms posting negative things about homosexuality non-stop. And it can help stop things like doxxing and promoting criminal activity and downright evil stuff. I don't oppose privacy tools existing, specially for edge cases like investigative journalism and oppressive regimes as you mentioned. I mostly oppose people using and promoting unmoderated or inadequately moderated services. I guess what's being discussed here is mostly infrastructure not services, but still I think the infrastructure may be able to help promote or facilitate healthy services. I've seen the outsized harm free for all spaces (usually "for teh lulz") can do to society, when we thought it was just innocent "shitposting". I encourage people to participate in spaces where you know there's ethical moderation (that also leaves leeway for cultural differences), avoid otherwise, and don't encourage anyone to participate there. I think HN is a pretty good example of that.
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
Not everyone believes censorship is a feature worth compromising the design of a network. How does the USPS prevent libel? How does the global telephone network prevent slander?
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Are libel, slander, and censorship all similar concerns in you opinion? I see libel and slander concerns over what another person says while censorship is an entity with more authority/power stopping me from what I want to say. The implied power imbalance alone makes censorship a much bigger concern to me, though maybe I'm biased there.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    Censorship is required if one wants to prevent libel and slander. There are some people who won't stop doing it unless an entity with more authority/power stops them from saying it.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      Everyone has more authority over their mailbox than any sender. Hence local spam filters block a lot of content without bring censorship. People can share their findings about the patterns of spam, hence collaborative / federated spam rejection lists. They are not dominated by any single entity or a small clique, and every user is free to heed or ignore any part of the list, or none at all. Hence it's not censorship. This mechanisms formed in the email network long before the current oligopoly formed, and still works. So I hope there is a honest way to filter out generally objectionable content by.a collective effort of the users who care, without turning the filter into a censorship tool.
      - ArneBab 2y ago
        This actually happens in the original Freenet (now Hyphanet): the communication tools use propagating trust and blocking. So if someone you communicate with regularly sees something objectionable and blocks it, it disappears for you, too. But you can always create a new identity that does not trust the other person — or set your own local trust — to see the content anyway. The important point is that this way resistence against disruption of communication scales better that the disruption (spam, libel, harassment, ...).
rini17 2y ago
There were unofficial lists of content keys for child porn you could use to purge them from your local storage. That was the most you could do.
utensil4778 2y ago
Freenet is not a place or a website. This is literally the same as asking "so how does the internet prevent spreading of slander or libel?", or as another commenter pointed out, asking how the global telephone system does the same. The question has no answer because the question doesn't make sense. It's a question that shows a fundamental lack of understanding.
w0z_ 2y ago
"slander, libel, abusive content" is a slope we've all seen slipped on. People in power use it to censor views they don't like.
- ziml77 2y ago
  And people use it to paint false images of people or situations to suit their agenda. Lies spread more readily than truth.
  - ArneBab 2y ago
    And centralized moderation tools gravitate towards favoring these lies. Even worse: lies about climate change are nowadays being spread via paid Youtube advertisements. This kind of centralized power should never have existed in the first place.
can16358p 2y ago
Even though I dislike and oppose abusive and questionable content, I'd take it over centralized censorship or state backdoors.
sph 2y ago
Basically what you are asking is "how does a free-speech platform prevent the spreading of speech I do not like?" Any platform that provides an answer to such a question cannot be labeled "free".

generalizations 2y ago

I'd say that's the wrong priority to focus on in a project like this.

llm_trw 2y ago

Unfortunately until god comes down from heaven we have no way of figuring out what is slander, libel, or otherwise abusive content.

dreamworld 2y ago
That's called moderation, dude! :P I think some moderation is important so things don't get out of control.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  So do the Imans in Iran. Least they stop hanging homosexuals on cranes.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    You're mixing moderation with punishment outside of the platform. Those things are extremely different.
    - sph 2y ago
      No, they are exactly the same, but taken to their extreme, yet inherent evolution. Putting you in jail or hanging you for "illegal speech" are just two degrees of punishment for violating the laws of the land, as it were. The degree of punishment is just a cultural thing. The only question is one: are you free, or not? No one is forcing you to use free-speech platforms, but to criticize them you need to understand what freedom means in the first place.
      - viraptor 2y ago
        This thread is not about jail, but preventing you from posting something on a specific platform. (Moderation) If you think that's exactly the same as hanging people, you need to talk to actual people outside...
        llm_trw 2y ago
        Again, the Imans would love to moderate your internet. They don't want to hang you for it. They just want you to never hear anything positive about homosexuality and the people they are hanging. Understanding this is very difficult for people who support their governments form of censorship, like everyone working at googleface.
        ArneBab 2y ago
        Did you see that there is nowadays information about abortion on the original Freenet (now Hyphanet)? I for sure did not expect that this would be needed for people in the USA. But that’s what happened.
        dreamworld 2y ago
        On the other hand, moderation can stop troll farms posting negative things about homosexuality non-stop. And it can help stop things like doxxing and promoting criminal activity and downright evil stuff. I don't oppose privacy tools existing, specially for edge cases like investigative journalism and oppressive regimes as you mentioned. I mostly oppose people using and promoting unmoderated or inadequately moderated services. I guess what's being discussed here is mostly infrastructure not services, but still I think the infrastructure may be able to help promote or facilitate healthy services. I've seen the outsized harm free for all spaces (usually "for teh lulz") can do to society, when we thought it was just innocent "shitposting". I encourage people to participate in spaces where you know there's ethical moderation (that also leaves leeway for cultural differences), avoid otherwise, and don't encourage anyone to participate there. I think HN is a pretty good example of that.

fallingsquirrel 2y ago

Not everyone believes censorship is a feature worth compromising the design of a network. How does the USPS prevent libel? How does the global telephone network prevent slander?

_heimdall 2y ago
Are libel, slander, and censorship all similar concerns in you opinion? I see libel and slander concerns over what another person says while censorship is an entity with more authority/power stopping me from what I want to say. The implied power imbalance alone makes censorship a much bigger concern to me, though maybe I'm biased there.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  Censorship is required if one wants to prevent libel and slander. There are some people who won't stop doing it unless an entity with more authority/power stops them from saying it.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    Everyone has more authority over their mailbox than any sender. Hence local spam filters block a lot of content without bring censorship. People can share their findings about the patterns of spam, hence collaborative / federated spam rejection lists. They are not dominated by any single entity or a small clique, and every user is free to heed or ignore any part of the list, or none at all. Hence it's not censorship. This mechanisms formed in the email network long before the current oligopoly formed, and still works. So I hope there is a honest way to filter out generally objectionable content by.a collective effort of the users who care, without turning the filter into a censorship tool.
    - ArneBab 2y ago
      This actually happens in the original Freenet (now Hyphanet): the communication tools use propagating trust and blocking. So if someone you communicate with regularly sees something objectionable and blocks it, it disappears for you, too. But you can always create a new identity that does not trust the other person — or set your own local trust — to see the content anyway. The important point is that this way resistence against disruption of communication scales better that the disruption (spam, libel, harassment, ...).

rini17 2y ago

There were unofficial lists of content keys for child porn you could use to purge them from your local storage. That was the most you could do.

utensil4778 2y ago

Freenet is not a place or a website. This is literally the same as asking "so how does the internet prevent spreading of slander or libel?", or as another commenter pointed out, asking how the global telephone system does the same. The question has no answer because the question doesn't make sense. It's a question that shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

w0z_ 2y ago

"slander, libel, abusive content" is a slope we've all seen slipped on. People in power use it to censor views they don't like.

ziml77 2y ago
And people use it to paint false images of people or situations to suit their agenda. Lies spread more readily than truth.
- ArneBab 2y ago
  And centralized moderation tools gravitate towards favoring these lies. Even worse: lies about climate change are nowadays being spread via paid Youtube advertisements. This kind of centralized power should never have existed in the first place.

can16358p 2y ago

Even though I dislike and oppose abusive and questionable content, I'd take it over centralized censorship or state backdoors.

sph 2y ago

Basically what you are asking is "how does a free-speech platform prevent the spreading of speech I do not like?" Any platform that provides an answer to such a question cannot be labeled "free".