I think we'll arrive at something where channels have a blockchain like model of ownership, and with it the ability to control posting and binaries, and with individual clients subscribing to the thread and simultaneously hosting it collectively.
So, for example, KIA2 would be "hosted" by KIA2's users in a decentralized fashion. So basically discord but based on bittorrent and bitcoin-like blockchain solving.
Darknets like Freenet and GNUnet have been tried, and failed to become fast enough. Today's appstores will ban their apps for hate speech, while FBI & co will flood them with pedo content. The Deep State wants and created Big Tech and other oligopolies that they can control, unlike a million small actors. I'm not so optimistic about a technological solution to a political/criminal problem.
What I'm describing would be based on blockchain so anonymity would be out the window but the ability to moderate by swarm enforcement of key access rules on who can and can't do what with binaries.
So for example, let's say communities.win is a collection of blockchannels. Nothing would obligate KIA2.win's blockchannel owning key to opt into communities.win's ACLs. But if they wanted to subscribe to a collective .win "porn offender / fbi false flag suspects" blockchannel's key restrictions, they could. The obvious retort is they can just spam new keys, to which the obvious reply is that binary adds will probably have to be whitelisted behavior in practice, and ultimately explicit whitelisting for all key activities would probably become the norm.
The functioning of the system would simply hinge on the majority of the swarm of clients being conforming clients that respect the ACLs in updating the blockchannel, and rejecting updates that don't conform.
This idea is sized around relatively small swarms, probably a thousand or less members. I have no fucking idea how badly it would scale but my gut says not well. Horizontally it would scale great (bittorrent) in terms of supporting infinite blockchannels. But vertically it would scale badly for supporting more activity on a given blockchain.
Have you tried having a discussion on Usenet lately? The spam is now completely out of control.
Yeah, we could have something like a private indexer, but then you're introducing gatekeeping and re-introducing central point of failure.
I'm thinking more along the lines of virtually every channel is a blockchain with an owning private key that can set the limits for the channel. It's success or failure would hinge on clients (conforming clients anyway) rejecting updates that don't conform to the blockchain's rules. With each individual user's edits to the blockchain channel being tied to their private key respectively.
By rules, I mean: "Only these keys can delete. Keys not these lists can add. Keys on this list can add binaries. These keys can conditionally delete based on age-out rules. Etc." That sort of thing.
So yes, you would still have channel moderators, but virtually nobody would be able to prevent the creation of more channel chains.
I'm old enough to remember those days too, y'know.
They never meant that individual resources couldn't be controlled.
If you are disappointed, it is because you misinterpreted their prophecy. They promised you freedom, and you have it. You merely did not grasp that the price is atomization. I have said here before, "facebook is just a url", and people laugh. But that's really all it is. In this place, it is VERY difficult for them to bring what's yours down if you do it right.
People say "but muh parler". PARLER USED AWS. As the saying goes, NOT YOUR KEY, NOT YOUR BITCOIN. If parler had run their own hardware from day one they'd never have been brought down.
Yes and?
The more the big platforms shoot themselves in the foot, the more other platforms will eventually be taller than them.
If you think that the next generation of platforms will be susceptible to such vagaries as laws, you haven't been paying attention.
I think we're a couple years out from seeing a PRACTICAL distributed hash social network that NOBODY will be able to bring down or even control.
Imagine usenet but stripped of all control. It will be fucking glorious.
So literally nothing but dick pics?
I do miss the wild west era of the internet so it'd be nice to get back to something like that.
I think we'll arrive at something where channels have a blockchain like model of ownership, and with it the ability to control posting and binaries, and with individual clients subscribing to the thread and simultaneously hosting it collectively.
So, for example, KIA2 would be "hosted" by KIA2's users in a decentralized fashion. So basically discord but based on bittorrent and bitcoin-like blockchain solving.
Darknets like Freenet and GNUnet have been tried, and failed to become fast enough. Today's appstores will ban their apps for hate speech, while FBI & co will flood them with pedo content. The Deep State wants and created Big Tech and other oligopolies that they can control, unlike a million small actors. I'm not so optimistic about a technological solution to a political/criminal problem.
Those were based emphasizing anonymity.
What I'm describing would be based on blockchain so anonymity would be out the window but the ability to moderate by swarm enforcement of key access rules on who can and can't do what with binaries.
Each blockchannel (© Piroko, 2021) would maintain its own ACLs and either a whitelist and/or blacklist, which can either be directly maintained or subscribed to other blacklists / whitelists from other blockchannels. So for example you could have large, community managed "known offender keys" blockchannel (or even multiple competing ones). But the decision to subscribe into them would be on the individual blockchannel owners.
So for example, let's say communities.win is a collection of blockchannels. Nothing would obligate KIA2.win's blockchannel owning key to opt into communities.win's ACLs. But if they wanted to subscribe to a collective .win "porn offender / fbi false flag suspects" blockchannel's key restrictions, they could. The obvious retort is they can just spam new keys, to which the obvious reply is that binary adds will probably have to be whitelisted behavior in practice, and ultimately explicit whitelisting for all key activities would probably become the norm.
The functioning of the system would simply hinge on the majority of the swarm of clients being conforming clients that respect the ACLs in updating the blockchannel, and rejecting updates that don't conform.
This idea is sized around relatively small swarms, probably a thousand or less members. I have no fucking idea how badly it would scale but my gut says not well. Horizontally it would scale great (bittorrent) in terms of supporting infinite blockchannels. But vertically it would scale badly for supporting more activity on a given blockchain.
Have you tried having a discussion on Usenet lately? The spam is now completely out of control. Yeah, we could have something like a private indexer, but then you're introducing gatekeeping and re-introducing central point of failure.
I'm thinking more along the lines of virtually every channel is a blockchain with an owning private key that can set the limits for the channel. It's success or failure would hinge on clients (conforming clients anyway) rejecting updates that don't conform to the blockchain's rules. With each individual user's edits to the blockchain channel being tied to their private key respectively.
By rules, I mean: "Only these keys can delete. Keys not these lists can add. Keys on this list can add binaries. These keys can conditionally delete based on age-out rules. Etc." That sort of thing.
So yes, you would still have channel moderators, but virtually nobody would be able to prevent the creation of more channel chains.
20-25 years ago I had professors citing that the same couldn’t happen to the internet. That it would treat censorship as damage and route around it….
We see how that’s worked out…
And they were correct.
I'm old enough to remember those days too, y'know.
They never meant that individual resources couldn't be controlled.
If you are disappointed, it is because you misinterpreted their prophecy. They promised you freedom, and you have it. You merely did not grasp that the price is atomization. I have said here before, "facebook is just a url", and people laugh. But that's really all it is. In this place, it is VERY difficult for them to bring what's yours down if you do it right.
People say "but muh parler". PARLER USED AWS. As the saying goes, NOT YOUR KEY, NOT YOUR BITCOIN. If parler had run their own hardware from day one they'd never have been brought down.