4 ms·
Yeah, I'm not a fan. Feels like this project is trying to get popular off of Freenet's name recognition rather than its own merits.
by pikdum 4mo ago
Yeah, I'm not a fan.
Feels like this project is trying to get popular off of Freenet's name recognition rather than its own merits.
- koolba 4mo agoThe submitter is the creator of the original Freenet. If anybody gets to decide what we will call Freenet, it’s him.
- cheesecompiler 4mo agoDoes he though?
- serf 4mo agothey most def have a choice as to what to broadcast about..
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- pikdum 4mo agoI'd agree if this was more like a Freenet v3, but it's an entirely different project with completely different goals.
- sanity 4mo agoHow are the goals different?
- cess11 4mo ago"Anonymity: While the previous version was designed with a focus on anonymity, the current version does not offer built-in anonymity but allows for a choice of anonymizing systems to be layered on top." https://freenet.org/about/faq/ https://freenet.org/about/faq/
- sanity 4mo agoHow is offering the user more choice with respect to anonymity changing the goals of the project?
- KaiserPro 4mo agothe _point_ of freenet was that you could anonymously share/store information. For better or worse, that was the point of it. It also drove the UX and tradeoffs for the network. It was slower than Kazaa/bittorrent, but it was far harder to work out who was shareing what. (if memory serves it also chunked files up so they weren;t on the same machine, but that could be me misremembering)
- ArneBab 4mo agoyes, it chunks files, and aggregates multiple chunks per packet, and pads packets it sends around, so size analysis by the ISP cannot trace the path.
- sanity 4mo ago> the _point_ of freenet was that you could anonymously share/store information. As you can with the new Freenet, you just get a menu of options instead of being forced to use a one-size-fits-all approach to anonymity.
- cess11 4mo agoI kind of see "focus" in the FAQ and "goals" in this thread as interchangeable. It would surprise me if this would not be a common interpretation of these texts alone among the readers here. As for the general reputation of the OG Freenet in this lineage, to the extent I'm aware, anonymity was pretty much the defining characteristic. More or less everything else in the user experience suffered to some extent compared to other chat and file sharing services because of this "focus".
- sanity 4mo agoIf we're doing archaeology, my original 1999 paper was called "A Distributed Decentralized Information Storage and Retrieval System".
- nextgens 4mo agoI've abstained form interfering until now... but have you honestly forgotten? Please explain how "the new freenet" tackles censorship resistance. https://web.archive.org/web/20001017133926/http://freenetproject.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20001017133926/http://freenetpro... "Freenet is a peer-to-peer network designed to allow the distribution of information over the Internet in an efficient manner, without fear of censorship." https://web.archive.org/web/20050201110519/http://freenetproject.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20050201110519/http://freenetpro... "Freenet is free software which lets you publish and obtain information on the Internet without fear of censorship." https://web.archive.org/web/20150206152355/https://freenetproject.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150206152355/https://freenetpr... "Share files, chat on forums, browse and publish, anonymously and without fear of blocking or censorship!" today: "Hyphanet is peer-to-peer network for censorship-resistant and privacy-respecting publishing and communication." the new freenet: ?!?
- SiempreViernes 4mo agoAre there any success stories about Hyphanet's censorship resistance mattering? Beyond serving run-of-the mill copyrigh violations (and probably child porn) I never heard anything about the content on Hyphanet. Even now when people in the US are organising against a fascist regime it's mostly WhatsApp and maybe Signal.
- nextgens 4mo agoThank you for the downvotes. You're moving the debate here. The question was "How are the goals different?" from the project leader (who ought to know better), not whether moving them makes sense.
- SiempreViernes 4mo agoWell I guess you think the important part of the goals is to make censorship technically difficult, without regard to if the software actually facilitates political speech at all. Others could argue that software nobody uses for its stated purpose has failed; but you are right that is technically a different discussion than the one you started.
- Alex_toani 4mo agoSo what's the different between Hyphanet and Freenet? Only some anonymity？ I have try the River chat. I'm not sure how to find a people chat in here. It's hard.
- GJim 4mo ago> If anybody gets to decide what we will call Freenet, it’s him. Perhaps. Though reusing the name for an entirely different project with a different codebase is disingenuous to say the least. That won't do his reputation any good, especially in a field where reputation matters.
- sanity 4mo ago> Though reusing the name for an entirely different project with a different codebase is disingenuous to say the least. Same project, same goals, and it's not even the first time we started with a fresh codebase - we did it in 2008. > That won't do his reputation any good, especially in a field where reputation matters. This drama never comes up anywhere except HN where it seems to be the obsession of a small number of vocal people who never have anything to say about the substance of the project. I don't lose any sleep over it.
- GJim 4mo ago> Same project, same goals Many on here beg to differ.
- sanity 4mo agoAnd yet I still haven't seen anyone explain how the goals actually differ. Interestingly, there seems to be very little overlap between the people giving substantive technical feedback and the people most upset about a 3-year-old naming controversy.
- DANmode 4mo agoThat’s not how contributing money to the success of a specific thing should be able to work at all.