«In 1993, John Gilmore famously said that "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." That was technically true when he said it but only because the routing structure of the Internet was so distributed. As centralization increases, the Internet loses that robustness, and censorship by governments and companies becomes easier.»
@kensanata And it's never been the Internet as infrastructure that did that; it's always been somewhat fragile and far too beholden to the US government. It just happened that the US government of the time saw itself as the protectors of freedom against "evil" foreign regimes. Now it's just another censor, just acting on behalf of different stakeholders.
@KevinCarson1 I had heard of Applebaum but not about Gilmore. A little duckducking led me to this Twitter thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/920150647445401601 Ouch! (Indirectly about Gilmore.)
@profoundlynerdy I guess I fear that a «p2p, trustless, zero knowledge infrastructure» is going to be a dark and lonely place. Perhaps that’s because things are in their infancy. If getting connected with all these services is as easy as buying a phone one day, then perhaps it won’t make a difference.
@kensanata I'm with you. Security is hard. Security that works transparently or intuitively that also protects the [quite possibly stupid] user from himself is *much* harder.
I do think it will get easier over time as various technologies mature. I also think it will take a series of "killer apps" that just happen to run over anonymity networks or the like.
> only because the routing structure of the Internet
At that time, the Internet was Usenet, a multicast system with distributed routing mechanism builtin. Now it's the World Wide Web, a unicast system with no distribution, not even Mastodon. It's the time for a distributed infrastructure to take control the Internet again.
@Shufei @niconiconi you definitely need to duck! 😂
But regarding resilience of the network: I really like the Cold War idea of the Internet. It can take blows. You connect to friendly nodes you trust. You disconnect misbehaving nodes. Nodes are small and postmasters are real people that help run the system.
And soon. It looks like we may need a Fidonet reboot just to do anything we used to outside the corporate state panopticon.
> Fidonet reboot
many people want to literally revive the old protocols and networks beyond retrocomputing purpose, e.g Gopher, NNTP, but none of them supports things like global hash identifier, public key cryptography, onion routing, P2P/Mesh net, <joke>blockchain</joke> or any modern inventions at the protocol layer.
IMHO, old protocols are dead, and we should leave it alone, what should be revived is __the philosophy__ of the old protocols, in our new systems.
@niconiconi @Shufei Actually gopher over Tor works, @tomasino does it; and gopher over TLS also works, I do it; but yeah, other things don’t work like that. And securing emails is super cumbersome and people rarely do it. And I don’t even know about people trying to revive nntp. I agree about the philosophy of the old Internet.
@kensanata @niconiconi @Shufei gopher is compatible with mesh networks as well. What gopher does not have on it's own is smart support for secure two way data transfer. I think that's okay. That's not what it's for.
Moreover, I think dusting off old protocols and composing them with newer tech is a brilliant way to move forward. The old stuff is simple and easy grok. Layer on well tested systems like Tor and you get something pretty fantastic.
I’ve noticed it in ham radio, where the preservation of retro tech is often reputed as overly stodgy, yet allows for a lot of weird cross fertilization into novel ideas when people play with in new ways.
@tomasino @kensanata I'm 100% dvorak now. This, a switch back to more ergo split keyboards (Microsoft Sculpt Ergonomic) and use of various braces throughout the day are helping. I'll look into contact juggling.
I think a big issue is that I'm spending 10+ hours a day on the computer at work. If I do projects or stuff for the side business, that goes up to 18-20. I'm hoping an upcoming break of 9 days at the start of July will help a lot.
> Actually gopher over Tor works, @tomasino does it; and gopher over TLS also works, I do it
I already expected this perspective, so in the original post I mentioned "protocol layer" to nullify it...
You are just replacing the transport layer. Yes it's a neat hack, and a good way to retrofit protocols on the modern Internet.
But does not really incorporate any new inventions to the protocols. If this protocol is going to be the next BBS, it is not enough IMHO.
@kensanata Ok, interesting, that is news to me. So maybe it’s a poor metaphor. I recall that they did a similar bandwidth / uptime tiering as Tor, but not anything about rigid hierarchy.
I looked into Fidonet in depth relatively late. It was already on the out, and I was sorry for that. Store and forward asynchronous nodes have real practical DIY appeal, and not to mention network robustness, which is why they are still a thing with hams.
@kensanata Ok. What do you make of #APRS as a model for possible multicasting networks in an insecure or besieged DIY internet future? That is, a layer for formally routed, acked info backbone, and then an adhoc layer for mobile or other intermittent nodes to toss data to whoever in the network picks it up? How would trust work in that? (APRS keys are ridiculously insecure fig leafs.)