5 ms·
IA needs to do what Usenet has done. Have a bunch of mission-aligned but unrelated orgs (under different ownership and distributed around the world) that peer w
by miki123211 6mo ago
IA needs to do what Usenet has done. Have a bunch of mission-aligned but unrelated orgs (under different ownership and distributed around the world) that peer with each other, distribute all the content obtained by any of the orgs to each other, but that have no technical channel nor capability to distribute DMCA complaints and takedown requests.
This is (AFAIK) basically how Usenet piracy works. You send your warez to one provider, and that provider instantly replicates them to all the providers they peer with, recursively, until they eventually reach the entire network. When any of those providers get a DMCA complaint, they remove the offending files (as they're required to do by law), but they don't inform other providers that they've received a DMCA notice, so those providers keep serving those files. This makes it much harder to remove data from the network than it is to add it.
- y3ahd0g 6mo agoSo they should use bit torrent. IMO personal security would only be improved if we diversified away from "the open web". "Flood the field" with protocols and pre-shared key networks where we have to generate keys together in meat space, make it too expensive to operate the panopticon. Everyone putting their eggs in the open web basket, gathering in that public commons means all it takes is one bomb on us all, so to speak.
- LocalH 6mo agoBitTorrent allows untrusted users (read: industry plants) to connect and slurp down direct IP addresses to swarm participants. It's an unanswered legal question whether low-level uploading (such as the percentages one would get as a "leech", connecting to the torrent and then disconnecting immediately after completion) might fall under "fair use" or "fair dealing" statutes in various jurisdictions. US-centric here: I feel that uploading a small percentage of a file as a condition of downloading the whole thing may very well fall under fair use - most BT traffic is noncommercial, the portion of the covered work uploaded by "leeches" is very small and probably would be covered by the "30-second" rule often quoted in fair use discussions. The only really arguable point is the "effect on the work's value", but then again an average leech is not uploading enough of the work to have that much of a material effect on the work's value.
- fsflover 6mo agoTorrents in I2P allow fully anonymous data exchange.
- y3ahd0g 6mo agoOk private 1:1 wireguard and syncthing or rsync all the way down then Softlink data to the appropriate mount The options are endless and tech nerds can 1:1 help friends and family Locking the knowledge into corporate silos is a huge security risk. The masses should be just as competent and informed so they don't panic Minority say over the economy and government is just fascism. These people are not deities. They're normal meat and bone We have processes to replace politicians and workers; we need processes to replace the rich. Free speech is a circular right and there is no freedom from consequences of speech. They can face consequences too
- mafuy 6mo agoIn Germany at least, uploading even a single byte of content is illegal. We don't really have Fair Use here; there are only few, very narrow exceptions. It is also not even required to show that that single byte was uploaded, your IP getting logged as part of the swarm suffices. The burden of proof is on you now. It was much, much worse than in the US. While all this is technically still true today, a new law a few years ago luckily mostly blocked the path. It was badly needed, because the situation was horribly abused by law firms.
- simondotau 6mo ago> even a single byte of content is illegal 10010110 Watch out die Deutschen, that’s the first byte of Super Mario Bros.
- abc123abc123 6mo agoWoop, woop, it's the sound of da police! I heard a rumour that this byte also exists in the Legend of Zelda! No go get em Mr Policeman!
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- cbdevidal 6mo agoI like it in theory but the IA hosts over 175PB of data. Wonder how many other producers could replicate that data.
- aryonoco 6mo agoI don’t have hard data to back this up, but I estimate that plenty of main Usenet binary providers easily exceed that.
- AnthonyMouse 6mo agoSuppose you don't have ten hosts that each have 175PB of data but rather a million hosts that each have an average of 1.75TB, and therefore the equivalent of 10 full copies. And then something that periodically checks if there is any given subset of the data with too few copies and makes more.
- torhacker 6mo ago[dead]
- pocksuppet 6mo agoThere are only 3-4 providers because the system is spammed with hundreds of terabytes of new data per day by actors seeking to destroy it. They can't moderate the spam because the pirated data is all encrypted so indistinguishable from random data, and because moderation would destroy their pretense of not knowing what content is being posted.
- anthk 6mo agoSpam is dead since Google Groups dissappeared and most people just use non-binary newsgroups for high tech/culture talks.
- pocksuppet 6mo agoThe binary Usenet is the one that Internet Archive would be like. It receives hundreds of terabytes of new data every day. Most of it is just random bits designed to waste space on the providers.
- topranks 6mo agoUsenet is a distributed policy from the ground up. It’s centralised in the way you describe now that it’s only used for large files / piracy, but it used to me much more diverse.