[HN Gopher] Winning back the Internet by building our own
___________________________________________________________________
Winning back the Internet by building our own
Author : sanqui
Score : 50 points
Date : 2020-12-06 11:33 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (roarmag.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (roarmag.org)
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Shorter: We could and should build local networks, but we can't
| build inter-networking infrastructure, so we'll just piggyback on
| the existing longer haul (0) infrastructure but not worry about
| it because it will be our protocols and data. So we won't
| actually build our own internet at all.
|
| (0) longer haul seems to mean more or less above the maximum
| length of a segment of CatN cable and/or reach of medium powered
| wifi transmitter.
| stargrave wrote:
| FidoNet is still living, however it lacks at least strong
| authentication and data confidentiality (no crypto used at all).
| But it shows that people could be capable of creating global
| networks without unwanted third-parties.
|
| For building store-and-forward networks I created NNCP several
| years ago and lack of connectivity, censorship (making no
| connection links) are one of the issues it aims to solve:
| http://www.nncpgo.org/Use-cases.html
| 13415 wrote:
| I'm currently building a network for a cheesy 80ies-style virtual
| Lisp machine from a parallel universe with libp2p. It's very
| cumbersome, the Go libp2p library is pretty arcane and split up
| across too many packages. But it does work, and when it's ready
| users of my machine will be able to send each other encrypted
| messages over a p2p network with NAT traversal.
| cortesoft wrote:
| This article basically describes how the current internet was
| created.... why would this new internet end up any different?
|
| You can't expect every person to be skilled enough (and with the
| time and desire) to be their own network administrator, so
| someone will have to run the network for those people... and they
| will need to be compensated for that work... and some people will
| be really good at running that network, and will have lots of
| clients and get very efficient at running networks, so more
| people will hire them.... and they will get big enough to hire
| people and pay for laying cables between networks... and suddenly
| we have the exact same system we have now.
|
| What would be different this time around if we started from
| scratch?
| strictfp wrote:
| Well, the novelty of course. Everything has it's way. Radio,
| TV, telephony, the internet; all have gone through different
| phases of commercialization and exploitations.
|
| It takes time for bureaucracy to take over. Think of the
| natural cycle of a startup becoming an enterprise, a niche shop
| becoming a large chain.
| Closi wrote:
| And as soon as there is the slightest bit of traction, the same
| companies would own it!
| fsflover wrote:
| I2P [0] does not require a special infrastructure and provides
| strong anonymity on top of existing networks.
|
| [0] https://geti2p.net
| miketery wrote:
| This is pretty awesome. What are the missing pieces to get
| people using this? Is there a need?
|
| I think it's being able to launch infrastructure like AWS but
| for consumers. Imagine one click to launch your "virtual home"
| / bastion. You can mange your virtual home from trusted devices
| (desktop, mobile, possibly web if you grant keys to 3rd party).
| In your virtual home you can setup I2P, a personal VPN (e.g.
| algo by trailofbits), tunnel/forward home server traffic to
| public internet (e.g. RPi), install torrent client & fire
| sharing drive for family, etc.
|
| Thoughts?
| Funes- wrote:
| >What are the missing pieces to get people using this?
|
| It's generally slow and it needs port forwarding to work
| correctly. Its design (whether you look at the java router,
| I2P, or the C++ one, i2pd) isn't really noob-friendly,
| either. That's more than enough to deter almost everyone from
| using it, it seems.
|
| >Is there a need?
|
| I'd say there's an ever-increasing need for anonymous,
| uncensorable platforms on the Internet. I wager we will
| progressively notice an urgency to turn to this kind of
| applications in the coming years. I hope I'm wrong on this
| one, but I don't think my guess will be too far off.
| fsflover wrote:
| >it needs port forwarding to work correctly
|
| What are you talking about? You need to put a proxy
| 127.0.0.1:4444 into your browser setup, but I wouldn't call
| it "port forwarding". Apart from that, you just install it
| and go to the eepsites. Upd: Indeed, you will also have to
| wait until the router finds enough peers.
|
| >What are the missing pieces to get people using this?
|
| I would say, it only needs more people to know about it.
| Funes- wrote:
| A firewalled router will not work correctly (it will be
| slow as hell, basically, and you'll be leeching off the
| network instead of contributing to it). I appreciate the
| project as much as anyone interested in it, but let's be
| real here. On top of that, no router will work
| efficiently _right after_ installation, firewalled or
| otherwise. You have to give it time to find other routers
| and make connections. It 's just not suited for the
| immediateness almost everyone expects from everything
| nowadays. It needs a major revamp in order to increase
| its adoption.
| fsflover wrote:
| This is all true. However if the goal is convenience,
| speed and adoption, one could decrease the number of hops
| and it will work much faster.
|
| > and you'll be leeching off the network instead of
| contributing to it
|
| Does not look like a problem in Tor (despite one would
| expect otherwise, given that by default you do not
| contribute back unlike in i2p). You just need enough
| seeders.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > provides strong anonymity
|
| How does it compare to Tor?
| fsflover wrote:
| https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/tor
| codethief wrote:
| Similar project (albeit not production-ready):
| https://gnunet.org
| bullen wrote:
| http://radiomesh.org
| pryelluw wrote:
| That site has no links. Do you have more info?
| briefcomment wrote:
| How does this idea apply to mobile networks? Would it require
| access to cell tower infrastructure to work?
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| It's not just that corporations own a lot of the physical
| infrastructure. Another factor is that humans as a group tend to
| force other humans to commercialize what they do, even if they
| expressly don't want to do that and would rather publish it
| without ads, without paywalls, without subscriptions, etc.
|
| We do a poor job of making it possible for people who create open
| source and people who create free content to get enough money out
| of that to give things away freely in service of their ideals.
| And after a while, people sometimes get fed up with working for
| free, seeing it benefit other people and not benefit them.
|
| I complain a lot about that wrt to my own writing, but I'm not
| the only one. I've seen posts recently that complain about big
| companies using open source and/or open source providers being
| fed up with working for free.
|
| Just a couple of things that come readily to mind:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25186890
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032105
|
| I find this maddening, especially when the idea of UBI is so
| popular. We actively punish people doing good works and tell them
| "Up yours. If you are an idealist, you can do it for free and
| find some other way to pay your bills." and then also say "We
| should just give money away to all the poor people simply for
| existing" while not actually making that a reality.
|
| Talk of UBI makes me think of people I have known in the past who
| would make conditional promises, like "If I win the lottery, I
| will give you half." Somewhere along the way I figured out that
| "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" and to not trust
| "naked men offering you the shirt off their back."
|
| People who actually want to make something happen will do the
| small thing in their power to accomplish today. People who make
| big promises based on long-shot bets (or on the idea that you
| need to make a big sacrifice before they will consider doing
| something for you -- and, no, it's not a stated as part of some
| kind of enforceable contract) are con artists, liars,
| manipulators and people wanting to be seen as "good guys" based
| on hot air without having to go through the pain and suffering
| typically required to do any real good in this world.
|
| If you want a better world, pry open your wallet and give a
| dollar to Patreon for an independent artist or a $5 PayPal tip or
| something.
|
| It's sort of a myth that big problems need big solutions. The
| antidote to a behemoth problem is often not some other equally
| powerful behemoth. It's often enough "little" solutions to weigh
| as much, so to speak.
|
| Start investing in the small answers. They are easier to reach
| and support and more likely to be a real antidote.
| baxtr wrote:
| Can somebody explain to me, what "winning back the Internet"
| actually means?
| [deleted]
| Munksgaard wrote:
| I think gemini[0] is an interesting alternative to the regular
| internet. It's deliberately designed to avoid many of the things
| making the web terrible[1].
|
| 0: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
|
| 1: https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.html
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| In throwing out the complexity of HTML, Gemini is also
| disposing of some markup that really helped screenreaders
| properly handle content. It would be a real shame if this
| "return to the good internet" left out the visually impaired. I
| agree with the goals of returning to a more bare-bones, text-
| heavy internet, but please, include the disabled in your vision
| from day one!
| Munksgaard wrote:
| I must admit that I don't know anything about screenreading
| or accessibility in general, but I think you raise a valid
| concern: Certainly, the "next-generation good internet"
| should be accessible to all.
|
| However, I would think that being much simpler (also, mind
| you, content-wise) would be a positive thing for gemini, in
| this context? Would you care to elaborate on what kinds of
| things are made harder by the choices gemini made? And what
| do you think could be done to alleviate those problems?
| msla wrote:
| Thinking of Gemini as an "alternative to" the Internet means
| you think of the Web as "the Internet" and I thought that we'd
| be a bit more technically savvy than that here.
|
| Also, there's no real technical reason Gemini-the-protocol
| can't serve HTML, but that discussion is probably dead, too.
| Munksgaard wrote:
| You're right, that was a a mischaracterization from my side.
| Thank you for the correction.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-06 23:00 UTC)