[HN Gopher] Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, ha...
___________________________________________________________________
Cabal: A peer-to-peer, off-grid, community-first, hackable chat
platform
Author : yosoyubik
Score : 260 points
Date : 2021-01-10 14:18 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cabal.chat)
(TXT) w3m dump (cabal.chat)
| londons_explore wrote:
| Network connections are getting faster... Peoples typing/reading
| speeds are not...
|
| One day it will be feasible for someone's phone to receive _all_
| messages sent by every other person on earth. They can then try
| to decode every message till they find one that their private key
| can decode.
|
| You've now made the perfect privacy messaging system - by sending
| all messages to all users, no quantity of network packet
| sniffing/timing analysis/evil nodes can figure out who is talking
| to who.
| PurpleFoxy wrote:
| This is exactly how bitmessage worked. The problem was that
| spammers would be able to flood the network with crap so to
| counter that it was added that proof of work must be completed
| to have your message forwarded on. The problem with this is it
| means you could not send a message from a mobile device because
| the PoW required was too high.
|
| Also a method to reduce the amount of traffic required was
| called streams. Instead of reviving all messages, you would be
| able to know what stream the receiver is on and then the
| receiver would just listen to all messages on stream 5. This
| scales up infinitely since you can just balance the network so
| all streams have hundreds of thousands of users on them.
| generalizations wrote:
| > spammers would be able to flood the network with crap
|
| Would there be a legit motivation to do that? I get that it's
| a threat, but would it be possible to gain anything from
| DDOSing that network?
|
| Seems like either a) you come up with a system for banning
| spam IPs, or b) the spammers _improve_ the anonymity of the
| rest of the network by creating more noise for the messages
| to hide in.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Thought experiment: There are 7e9 people on earth. Say they
| send 10, 100 byte messages per day, but that compresses 10x
| (modern text compression using big neural networks is _amazing_
| ).
|
| That works out to 7e11 bytes per day, or 8 Megabytes per
| second. That is _nearly_ feasible today...
| generalizations wrote:
| However, that's also 21 Terabytes per month. It'll be a while
| before that's feasible. Hopefully the population doesn't grow
| with our bandwidth capabilities.
| cmrx64 wrote:
| the square kilometer array produces a terabyte a second.
| 21tb/mo is peanuts. we'll get there :)
| rhencke wrote:
| You may find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station
| interesting.
| snvzz wrote:
| No full forward secrecy.
|
| >All traffic is encrypted using a symmetric key, meaning that
| anybody who has the cabal://abcdef key can read cabal network
| traffic.
|
| If you're even considering this, look at https://tox.chat/
| instead. That one's been around for a while (thus mature) and
| actually has full forward secrecy.
| Multicomp wrote:
| (never tried cabal, it could be worse)
|
| tox was accused of having a poor crypto implementation /
| playing silly buggers with libsodium. I've tried it on android,
| works ok but most apps at the time seemed older. not sure where
| tox stands re community liveliness but its certainly a good
| start on p2p messaging, my claims notwitshtanding.
| snvzz wrote:
| >tox was accused of having a poor crypto implementation
|
| The actual flaw: If _your_ *private* key is stolen, your
| friends can be impersonated to you.
|
| Hardly worth the infamy.
|
| There's a bug open on this, the solution is known, the
| opportunity for a fix, and when it will be made live, will be
| the next time a protocol break ("flag day") is necessary for
| other reasons.
| Multicomp wrote:
| I will be trying tox again after that event then.
| mempko wrote:
| Problem with forward secrecy is that it doesn't really work
| well for a use case like cabal. You want to be able to join a
| cabal and read all the past conversations.
| snvzz wrote:
| That's desirable for _some_ rooms, not on every room and
| definitely not on private conversations.
|
| Matrix handles that well, by having a setting per-room
| regarding handling of room history.
| yamrzou wrote:
| Interesting project. How does it compare to Briar
| https://briarproject.org/ ?
| creamytaco wrote:
| Briar only works on Android so it's inherently flawed.
|
| Of course, Cabal being written in javascript is also a major
| minus. As an oldschool Unix hacker, I don't really get the
| node.js fixation for command line tools. It's a certainty that
| they'll never be used by a significant chunk of knowledgeable,
| expert Unix users that want nothing to do with node.
|
| Finally, there is no protocol documentation anywhere that I can
| see. This is yet another way that these modern tools fail
| spectacularly. In the golden age of the Internet, published
| protocol documentation that allowed for multiple clients to be
| developed was the norm rather than the exception. Which led to
| robust, long living protocols and services (e.g. IRC).
|
| Even though we're being drowned in apps, this isn't happening
| today and we're worse off for it.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| > I don't really get the node.js fixation for command line
| tools.
|
| It's simply because most developers are web developers. They
| use the programming language and tooling they're familiar
| with. I do also wish that there wasn't so much of a move to
| webify everything, particularly since web dev is so prone to
| constantly changing fads and dependency sprawl. It tends to
| lead to code/software that breaks all the time.
| metadaemon wrote:
| I'd say that JS desktop/web applications are becoming more
| prevalent due to most alternative GUI frameworks not being
| as simple and feature rich. I'd also say that this is most
| likely a side effect of most UI resources being targeted
| towards JS and therefore reducing the attention all other
| GUI tooling receives.
| efdee wrote:
| No knowledgeable, expert Unix user I know brushes a Node
| program aside just because it is Node.
| swirepe wrote:
| We've all taken some git precommit hook that a coworker has
| helpfully provided, and rewritten it in bash so you don't
| need the entire node runtime to append a ticket number to a
| string.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I don't brush aside Node programs _just_ because they 're
| Node. I brush them aside because they usually drag in a few
| MB of dependencies, and melt my (mid-level) computer with
| compilation (often OOM-killing everything else I'm doing on
| the machine, before dying to the OOM-killer itself) - but
| for all that, I then need to keep the _entire thing_ on my
| hard drive because the compilation was mere caching, and
| hasn 't given me an executable; I've still got the runtime
| overhead of Node, and everything that comes with it.
|
| There are a few Python programs I also brush aside for this
| reason, though substantially fewer. Virtually every Node
| project I've seen is a spidery mess of dependencies
| bringing in dependencies bringing in yet more un-auditable
| dependencies; the worst Python tends to get is Tensorflow,
| and it's ready to run immediately (compiling C modules
| aside - though pip does that at installation time, making
| that a one-time annoyance for all but obscure C packages).
| efdee wrote:
| Melt your computer with compilation? A Node program?
|
| More to the point, did you audit Tensorflow? If no, then
| what's your point to begin with? If yes, what made you
| conclude that auditing Tensorflow is doable, but usually
| simple NPM modules are "un-auditable"?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I didn't audit Tensorflow. But I don't install Tensorflow
| programs, anyway, because I don't have the resources.
|
| The point isn't auditing, though; it's auditability. If
| it's auditable, then somebody's probably done it - but if
| it's _not_ , you can't rely on just a spot check of a few
| dice-picked dependencies.
| Shared404 wrote:
| > knowledgeable, expert Unix user
|
| I wouldn't describe myself as that, but I think I'm a
| little bit past noob at this point.
|
| I don't "brush aside" a program because it's node, but it's
| definitely a strike against it. I don't like dealing with
| the massive amount of dependencies that always seems to
| follow along with it.
| vertis wrote:
| <deleted>
| filleduchaos wrote:
| I can't speak for Perl or Python, but for Ruby I have
| never seen a single Ruby tool that pulls in anything
| close to the same order of magnitude of discrete
| dependencies that some JS tools end up doing. I of course
| stand to be corrected.
|
| I don't mind installing tools like Rollup and TypeScript.
| I do very much mind installing tools like Webpack and
| Babel.
| Shared404 wrote:
| On Pop!_OS, apt show python3-pip
|
| shows six dependencies, while apt show
| npm
|
| shows: nodejs (>= 6.11~), ca-
| certificates, node-abbrev (>= 1.1.1~), node-ajv, node-
| ansi, node-ansi-regex (>= 3.0~), node-ansi-styles, node-
| ansistyles, node-aproba, node-archy (>= 1.0~), node-are-
| we-there-yet, node-asap, node-asn1, node-assert-plus,
| node-asynckit, node-aws4, node-aws-sign2, node-balanced-
| match, node-bcrypt-pbkdf, node-bl, node-bluebird, node-
| boxen, node-brace-expansion, node-builtin-modules, node-
| builtins, node-cacache, node-call-limit, node-camelcase,
| node-caseless, node-chalk, node-chownr, node-ci-info,
| node-cli-boxes, node-cliui, node-clone, node-co, node-
| color-convert, node-color-name, node-colors, node-
| columnify, node-combined-stream, node-concat-map, node-
| concat-stream, node-config-chain, node-configstore, node-
| console-control-strings, node-copy-concurrently, node-
| core-util-is, node-crypto-random-string, node-cyclist,
| node-dashdash, node-debbundle-es-to-primitive, node-
| debug, node-decamelize, node-deep-extend, node-defaults,
| node-define-properties, node-delayed-stream, node-
| delegates, node-detect-indent, node-detect-newline, node-
| dot-prop, node-duplexer3, node-duplexify, node-ecc-jsbn,
| node-editor, node-encoding, node-end-of-stream, node-err-
| code, node-errno, node-es6-promise, node-escape-string-
| regexp, node-execa, node-extend, node-extsprintf, node-
| fast-deep-equal, node-find-up, node-flush-write-stream,
| node-forever-agent, node-form-data, node-from2, node-
| fs.realpath, node-fs-vacuum, node-fs-write-stream-atomic,
| node-function-bind, node-gauge, node-genfun, node-get-
| caller-file, node-getpass, node-glob (>= 7.1.2~), node-
| got, node-graceful-fs (>= 4.1.11~), node-gyp (>= 3.6.2~),
| node-har-schema, node-har-validator, node-has-flag, node-
| has-unicode, node-hosted-git-info (>= 2.6~), node-http-
| signature, node-iconv-lite, node-iferr, node-import-lazy,
| node-imurmurhash, node-inflight, node-inherits (>=
| 2.0.3~), node-ini (>= 1.3.5~), node-invert-kv, node-ip,
| node-ip-regex, node-isarray, node-isexe, node-is-npm,
| node-is-obj, node-is-path-inside, node-is-retry-allowed,
| node-is-stream, node-isstream, node-is-typedarray, node-
| jsbn, node-jsonparse, node-json-parse-better-errors,
| node-json-schema, node-json-schema-traverse, node-
| jsonstream (>= 1.3.2~), node-json-stringify-safe, node-
| jsprim, node-latest-version, node-lazy-property, node-
| lcid, node-libnpx, node-locate-path, node-lodash, node-
| lockfile (>= 1.0.3~), node-lowercase-keys, node-lru-cache
| (>= 4.1.1~), node-make-dir, node-mem, node-mime, node-
| mime-types, node-mimic-fn, node-minimatch, node-minimist,
| node-mississippi, node-mkdirp (>= 0.5.1~), node-move-
| concurrently, node-ms, node-mute-stream, node-nopt, node-
| normalize-package-data (>= 2.4~), node-npm-bundled, node-
| npm-package-arg (>= 6.1.1), node-npmlog (>= 4.1.2~),
| node-number-is-nan, node-oauth-sign, node-object-assign,
| node-once (>= 1.4~), node-opener, node-osenv (>= 0.1.5~),
| node-os-locale, node-os-tmpdir, node-package-json, node-
| parallel-transform, node-path-exists, node-path-is-
| absolute, node-path-is-inside, node-promise-inflight,
| node-promise-retry, node-promzard, node-performance-now,
| node-p-finally, node-p-is-promise, node-pify, node-p-
| limit, node-p-locate, node-prepend-http, node-process-
| nextick-args, node-proto-list, node-prr, node-pseudomap,
| node-psl, node-pump, node-pumpify, node-punycode, node-
| qs, node-qw, node-rc, node-read (>= 1.0.7~), node-
| readable-stream, node-read-package-json (>= 2.0.13~),
| node-registry-auth-token, node-registry-url, node-
| require-main-filename, node-require-directory, node-
| resolve-from (>= 4.0~), node-retry (>= 0.10.1~), node-
| rimraf (>= 2.6.2~), node-run-queue, node-safe-buffer,
| node-semver (>= 5.5~), node-set-blocking, node-sha (>=
| 2.0.1~), node-shebang-command, node-shebang-regex, node-
| signal-exit, node-slide (>= 1.1.6~), node-sorted-object,
| node-slash, node-semver-diff, node-spdx-correct, node-
| spdx-exceptions, node-spdx-expression-parse, node-spdx-
| license-ids, node-sshpk, node-ssri, node-stream-each,
| node-stream-iterate, node-stream-shift, node-strict-uri-
| encode, node-string-decoder, node-string-width, node-
| strip-ansi (>= 4.0~), node-strip-json-comments, node-
| strip-eof, node-supports-color, node-tar (>= 4.4~), node-
| term-size, node-text-table, node-through, node-through2,
| node-timed-out, node-tough-cookie, node-tunnel-agent,
| node-tweetnacl, node-typedarray, node-uid-number, node-
| unique-filename, node-unique-string, node-unpipe, node-
| url-parse-lax, node-util-deprecate, node-uuid, node-
| validate-npm-package-name, node-verror, node-which (>=
| 1.3~), node-which-module, node-wide-align, node-widest-
| line, node-wrap-ansi, node-wrappy, node-wcwidth.js, node-
| write-file-atomic, node-xdg-basedir, node-xtend, node-
| yargs, node-yargs-parser, node-yallist, node-y18n
| efdee wrote:
| What does that prove? The six dependencies are probably
| an order of magnitude larger than the NPM ones.
|
| If anything, lots of small dependencies is more Unix-y
| than one big dependency.
| Shared404 wrote:
| pip's download size is 47.6 kB, npm's is 579 kB.
|
| pip's installed size is 194 kB, npm's is 3,413 kB.
|
| All numbers are from Pop!_OS apt.
| filleduchaos wrote:
| > If anything, lots of small dependencies is more Unix-y
| than one big dependency.
|
| Of course, as evidenced by much-used programs such as
| curl and git having 400 dependencies each and OpenSSL
| being shipped as separate libraries for every single
| crypto function.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| If all of those dependencies are maintained by different
| teams, then it widens the surface area for unexpected
| bugs.
|
| For something where you need security (i.e. a
| decentralized chat platform), this could be problematic.
| f430 wrote:
| wow this space is really taking off after the moves by big tech.
| this is the way of the future.
| supermatt wrote:
| How does peer discovery work? Im assuming there must be some
| central server(s) to handle the bootstrap? I had a quick scan
| through the github projects, but couldnt see any high level
| documentation explaining the architecture. Would appreciate some
| insight!
| jakswa wrote:
| "Currently searches across and advertises on the Bittorrent
| DHT, centralized DNS servers and Multicast DNS simultaneously."
| Sayrus wrote:
| Implementations details can be found on discovery-channel
| GitHub's [0]
|
| As far as I can tell Cabal uses discovery-swarm [1] for
| connection management.
|
| [0] https://github.com/maxogden/discovery-channel
|
| [1] https://github.com/mafintosh/discovery-swarm
| nanomonkey wrote:
| It's built on the Hypercore Protocol [0](previously known as
| DAT), so I would assume DHT (Distributed Hash Tables).
|
| [0]https://hypercore-protocol.org/
| frob wrote:
| This site doesn't render properly on mobile. Many of the blocks
| flow off the screen to the left and right.
|
| I was intrigued, but like many projects, the first impression I
| got was of sloppy development unable to even test one of the most
| common ways to view their site and it drove me away.
| oftheoaks wrote:
| Thanks for letting us know, I filed a bug:
| https://github.com/cabal-club/cabal-club.github.io/issues/11
| dgellow wrote:
| Which browser? Looks fine for me using latest Edge.
| frob wrote:
| Chrome on Android
| gpanders wrote:
| Not OP but I had the same experience in Safari on iPhone
| kevdev wrote:
| Same for me when viewing vertically. Rotating my phone to
| view horizontally worked better.
| lukevp wrote:
| Do you use edge on mobile? I haven't heard of anyone using
| that before, so was curious if you missed the mobile part of
| the post or if you do use it mobile.
| dgellow wrote:
| You're correct, I did miss the mobile part.
| jv22222 wrote:
| For clarification:
|
| The 1st amendment ensures that the _government_ may not stop you
| from saying what you want.
|
| This is a separate issue from private companies removing/banning
| you. Each company has their own right and freedom to be as
| dickish as they want with regard to deleting your account etc -
| but that is not related to the 1st.
| bluesign wrote:
| Yeah but if they have this freedom (being dickish etc) then
| they should also be responsible for what they are publishing on
| their platforms.
|
| They want to have their cake and eat it.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Does anyone need this clarification? I feel like this is like
| trying to stop a discussion on self driving cars and bringing
| up the trolley problem. Everyone knows it. No one (serious) is
| saying that private companies have a legal responsibility to
| host everyone's speech lest they be guilty of violating the
| first amendment.
| ravenstine wrote:
| No, it isn't. There's already precedents for what businesses
| can and cannot prevent you from doing. If, for instance, you
| think a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a
| certain message on it, then you can't make the argument that
| there should be no regulation on how much a business can censor
| its users.
|
| That's not the only example. There's extensive case law that
| establishes how both governments and businesses have to either
| allow or curtail speech under certain conditions. A business
| can't legally compel you to do say something or wear a piece of
| clothing in a way that discriminates against you. A sex shop
| can't just open anywhere because, while it's been argued that
| they should be allowed as a form of free expression, they tend
| not to be considered as such under the spirit of the law. A
| person can be held responsible for the aftermath of shouting
| "fire" in a crowded room, even though this speech is
| superficially supported by the first amendment. Point being, we
| make decisions about freedom of speech that don't necessarily
| follow the letter of the constitution or stay within the bounds
| of the government.
|
| Freedom of speech isn't just a law. It's a social principle
| upon which America was founded. If all meaningful communication
| is dominated by too-big-to-fail businesses with AI that can
| scour all correspondence, a reality we are rapidly approaching,
| then freedom of speech becomes meaningless. The situation
| becomes worse when these companies are all politically aligned
| with the regime. This is why we can't ignore how private
| companies regulate communication through their systems.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > a business should be compelled to bake a cake with a
| certain message on it
|
| That is a misrepresentation of the case:
|
| > Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil
| Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations
| law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits
| businesses open to the public from discriminating against
| their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or
| sexual orientation.
|
| The complain was under a _state law_ specifically to address
| sexual orientation discrimination and it has been
| acknowledged that such law doesn't force a business to make
| cakes with arbitrary messages.
|
| https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado.
| ..
|
| That said:
|
| > If all meaningful communication is dominated by too-big-to-
| fail businesses with AI that can scour all correspondence, a
| reality we are rapidly approaching, then freedom of speech
| becomes meaningless.
|
| I agree that monopolies and centralization are a threat to
| freedom. Though would argue that it should be addressed both
| via decentralization (and specifically through counter-anti-
| desintermediation as discussed in the P2P Foundation:
| https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-
| Disintermediatio...) and anti-trust enforcement.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Freedom of speech isn't just a law. It's a social principle
| upon which America was founded.
|
| Yes, and that principal is specifically that the proper way
| to advance in ideas is for them to have to compete for the
| favor of private actors without public authorities
| intervening, and that the freedom of private actors to choose
| on their own to promote or relay messages, most critically
| political messages, including the free choice _to decline to
| do so_ is essential for free society.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| There's a difference between you saying what you want on the
| cake (if they had self-service), and the biz having to write
| what you want written.
|
| That said, agreed. Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert
| is not a positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG's recent
| decisions is naive.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Big Tech and Fed Govs working in concert is not a
| positive. Anyone cheering on FAANG's recent decisions is
| naive.
|
| FAANG's recent decisions are directly against the _head_ of
| the Federal Government, not taken in concert with "Fed
| Govs".
| tetrometal wrote:
| I agree completely. This is why I fully support Twitter's right
| to ban Trump, Amazon's right to dump Parler, etc.
|
| The left and the right both get freedom of association wrong.
| The right gets it wrong on Parler, the left gets it wrong on
| gay wedding cakes. Everyone needs to stop advocating for the
| use of the government gun against peaceful people, no matter
| how much of an asshole they consider their political
| adversaries to be.
| tonymet wrote:
| I'd like to address this, since it's a common retort meant to
| shutdown discussion on censorship. It's disingenuous , because
| "First amendment" is so essential to American culture, that it
| means both the literal First Amendment to the constitution AND
| more importantly, the American principle of free expression.
|
| Ether you are aware that people are appealing to free
| expression as a principle, or you are unaware that free
| expression is more American than apple pie. That's why I say
| this retort is disingenuous.
|
| So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn't help
| the discussion on what people and companies should be doing.
|
| The discussion is about American values and if people,
| companies and the government should be living up to them. And
| that's what people are trying to debate when they say "first
| amendment".
| revnode wrote:
| This. The companies are behaving in an un-American manner.
| What they are doing is deeply selfish and cynical. They
| should be criticized for their behavior and shamed for it. We
| should not excommunicate members of our society even if the
| things they say are reprehensible. And yes, the companies
| have a right to do it, but there are plenty of things you can
| do, but should nevertheless be shamed for doing.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > We should not excommunicate members of our society even
| if the things they say are reprehensible.
|
| We do all the time. That's how cultural norms are enforced.
| steve76 wrote:
| Who would win in a deplatforming food fight? Google or
| Apple?
|
| Google's union now, right? And Apple fires people in
| elevators and vowed on their deathbed "I'm going to destroy
| Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go
| thermonuclear war on this.
|
| So. Not saying you two should fight. If a fight did break
| out, who would win?
|
| And now that I think about it, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook,
| Twitter, all have their strengths and flaws. Amazon is hell
| for suppliers. Why should Apple get paid so much for
| something they can buy out of China? And does the AWS UI
| "just work"? Does it really?
|
| Facebook keeps files on people like some secret police
| intelligence unit. And Twitter's long term vision just
| won't work unless you have no mouth and must scream. Tweet
| for a subway door to open. How stupid do you have to be.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > The companies are behaving in an un-American manner.
|
| Those are transnational private companies. What is stopping
| others from claiming they have been behaving in an un-
| Chinese manner or an un-European manner or an un-Russian
| manner so far? How is a naive notion of nationalism of
| capital an argument of how such entities should behave when
| they operate in most recognized nations with different
| ideological and regulatory frameworks?
| revnode wrote:
| > Those are transnational private companies.
|
| If you're going to sell your services and goods here, you
| need to comport to the cultural norms HERE.
|
| > What is stopping others from claiming they have been
| behaving in an un-Chinese manner or an un-European manner
| or an un-Russian manner so far?
|
| Nothing.
|
| > How is a naive notion of nationalism of capital an
| argument of how such entities should behave when they
| operate in most recognized nations with different
| ideological and regulatory frameworks?
|
| They can and do change business practices to fit the
| region.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > If you're going to sell your services and goods here,
| you need to comport to the cultural norms HERE.
|
| They are also selling their services and goods there so:
|
| > They can and do change business practices to fit the
| region.
|
| They have and do change their practices to fit the global
| region they operate in so the "un-american" critique
| would be moot.
| revnode wrote:
| > They have and do change their practices to fit the
| global region they operate in so the "un-american"
| critique would be moot.
|
| I'm not sure what this means. They are behaving poorly
| HERE. I am not criticizing them for the crazy stuff they
| do elsewhere. That's an entirely different conversation.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > They are behaving poorly HERE
|
| That a critique of their behavior should not depend on
| the locality (an ideological statement) much less a
| locality that represents about 1.9% of the world area and
| 4.2% of the population.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| > So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn't
| help the discussion on what people and companies should be
| doing.
|
| If you're going to go down this road, then you must address
| government compelled speech, and the limits on the control of
| private property. I've found that the "private corporations
| are censoring me" crowd, don't want to engage with this
| obvious outcome, or pay lip service by saying, "Make [insert
| big tech company here] is a utility!", again without thinking
| through the implications.
|
| The compelled speech problem is obvious. Give me your car, I
| want to put a bumper sticker on it. If you don't let me, or
| you take it off, you're censoring me.
|
| This is an absurd request, it's your car, you can control
| what goes on it. Same if I demand to have a book club meet in
| your living room. It's your living room. Just because you
| invite some people over, doesn't mean that everyone has a
| right to come in. It's private property, and you can express
| yourself by who you let in, and who you don't. Twitter,
| Facebook, etc are no different. They're private property. No
| one has a right to have an account and demand an audience.
|
| Now let's take the utility argument, since a utility would
| mean that everyone needs to be allowed right? Well, a utility
| is a highly regulated government monopoly. These regulations
| increase the barrier to entry into these spaces, and
| effectively eliminate all competition. In fact, protected
| monopoly status is often the trade for utility status.
|
| These concerns of expression versus private property rights
| are new, they've existed from very beginning. While the
| prohibitions on government, but not private actions, may
| sometimes be frustrating, it's a workable, and consistent,
| solution.
| chippy wrote:
| Are you replying to a comment? This appears to me, right now,
| as the top one in the thread and is unconnected to any others
| and seems to me to be orphaned.
|
| If it's in direct response to the submission, I cannot find
| anything in the submission that might give rise to a
| clarification
| erichocean wrote:
| Try duck typing "the government" sometime. I think you'll find
| the paperwork doesn't match the power centers, and that the
| most powerful parts of "the government" are completely
| unaccountable to voters, and in fact, aren't even listed on the
| founding documents...
|
| It's a nice way to be in power if you can manage it.
| s17n wrote:
| "Freedom of press" can and should be interpreted to proscribe
| deplatforming by the big tech companies.
| nostromo wrote:
| Freedom of speech is a guiding principle that predates the
| United States, and the first amendment, by a few millennia.
|
| And yet every discussion about free speech online contains a
| few comments about the first amendment's narrow legal scope.
| Sure, that's right, but freedom of speech does not have a
| narrow legal scope; it's a much broader concept, and it is
| global in nature.
|
| In almost every case online, the discussion is about the global
| ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law.
| jv22222 wrote:
| My clarification was just to try to bring clarity to the
| discussion because a lot of times (as seen in the thread)
| there is some confusion.
|
| I'm curious how what you just said translates into real world
| application?
|
| Not trying to argue I am genuinely interested to hear more!
| alexeldeib wrote:
| > In almost every case online, the discussion is about the
| global ideal of freedom of speech, not about US law.
|
| In the recent events in the US, a lot of people have
| (mistakenly, IMO) cited the first amendment for protection of
| speech many others don't like. But those protections afford
| no help against private actors. In that context GP makes a
| lot of sense bringing up this point.
|
| Example: a US senator cites the first amendment when
| discussing free speech after a publisher refuses to run his
| book: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/08/josh-
| hawley-...
| kova12 wrote:
| Freedom of speech specifically applies to offensive speech.
| You don't need any legal protections to talk about flowers
| and butterflies
| alexeldeib wrote:
| Bringing it back to the context of the original reply: it
| applies to protection from the government, not protection
| from private individuals when you make speech which
| offends those individuals.
|
| That's why I linked the book case. Hawley cites the first
| amendment, but he's in a contract with a private entity
| to publish the book. Barring contract disputes, there is
| no first amendment case that the publisher must
| distribute his book.
| blast wrote:
| Free speech and censorship are issues that go far beyond just
| the First Amendment. This has always been the case, and recent
| efforts to narrow the scope of the term are actually part of
| the battle to reduce free speech (and increase censorship)
| that's going on right in the culture now.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| It used to be true that companies could be dickish to you, but
| now thanks to the 13th amendment (and the courts interpretation
| thereof), there are specific ways that they cannot be dickish
| to you. Either way you are right that it's not related to the
| 1st amendment though.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why are there so many threads today about alternative platforms?
| jhardy54 wrote:
| MAGA folks looking for platforms for their "free speech".
| oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
| I was thinking WhatsApp but maybe you're right
| EGreg wrote:
| Okay I'll bite
|
| Just posted our free open source platform we were working
| on for 10 years:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717417
| oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
| Sorry man not interested in non-federated solutions.
| EGreg wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by non-federated... Qbix can
| support many protocols including foaf, matrix,
| scuttlebutt, DID and so on. You can make it as federated
| as you wish.
| jhardy54 wrote:
| > MAGA folks looking for platforms for their "free
| speech".
|
| This is not a target demographic you should strive for.
| EGreg wrote:
| I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for
| solving society's main communication problems, I think
| people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for
| their speech. But I do believe in empowering people and
| uniting communities. If you want to run your own social
| network out of your own servers, you should be able to.
| The fact that the software to power user friendly
| communication platforms is scarce is a big problem. They
| extract rents. They cut you off if they don't like what
| you have to say. And worst of all, they concentrate power
| in the hands of a few people regarding what decisions are
| to be made. That is actually the source of all this
| arguing.
|
| If you're arguing whether we should have Title I or Title
| II, or whether we should use Facebook or Google,
| Microsoft or Amazon, Democrat and Republican, you've
| already lost. Open source collaboration beats closed
| source competition every time in the end. Everyone can
| host their own network and label the map however they
| want, and so on. No fighting over flags or one size fits
| all policies!
|
| In the 19th century there was a word for this:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
| drdec wrote:
| >I am not really a big fan of end-to-end encryption for
| solving society's main communication problems, I think
| people (pseudonymous or not) should be accountable for
| their speech.
|
| I think there ought to be an on-line analogue to two
| consenting adults talking in a private room in one of
| their homes. Unless I misunderstand you, it doesn't sound
| like that on-line capability is compatible with your
| statement.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > I think people ... should be accountable for their
| speech.
|
| There is certainly some speech which is and should be
| illegal, but if you optimize communication systems for
| "accountability" you might end up in a situation which is
| worse than what we have now.
|
| "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee
| freedom after speech." -- Idi Amin
| jhardy54 wrote:
| I agree, and that's why I work on Scuttlebutt.
|
| But I also think we should do everything in our power to
| dissuade dangerous folks (example: violent extremists)
| from using these tools.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| Which is incompatible with cabal's values, so they'd be in
| trouble. https://github.com/cabal-
| club/commons/blob/master/values.md#...
| the_other wrote:
| WhatsApp making explicit their data sharing with FaceBook.
| benbristow wrote:
| Looks nice. Sorely lacking image uploads though, just seems like
| a decentralized IRC that looks like Slack at the minute.
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| According to the FAQ there is a prototype implementation of it
| in one of the clients, and apparently once that stabilizes they
| will standardize it on other clients. Looks like it's a work in
| progress, not an oversight
| lemonspat wrote:
| Image uploads are nice, but can be overcome through other
| channels until the feature is added. The page says that the
| project is "super young"
| camdenlock wrote:
| It's incredibly disheartening to see how quickly people are
| warming to the practice of coordinated top-down gagging of
| certain individuals and groups.
|
| You won't be so happy to cheer on such behavior and policies when
| in the future the one silenced turns out to be you.
|
| The power to censor should be given solely to the individual to
| curate their own information diet; it should never belong to the
| medium itself (whether government, private company, autonomous
| network, etc).
| deegles wrote:
| I used to think that way until I learned about the illusory
| truth effect, which basically states that being exposed to
| information multiple times makes you more likely to believe it
| to be true. The consequence of this is that attempting to
| curate information might "infect" you with ideas that you never
| wanted in your brain in the first place.
| nx20593 wrote:
| If you started in the wrong way," I said in answer to the
| investigator's questions, "everything that happened would be
| a proof of the conspiracy against you. It would all be self-
| validating. You couldn't draw a breath without knowing it was
| part of the plot." "So you think you know where madness
| lies?" My answer was a convinced and heartfelt, "Yes." "And
| you couldn't control it?" "No I couldn't control it. If one
| began with fear and hate as the major premise, one would have
| to go on the conclusion." "Would you be able," my wife asked,
| " to fix your attention on what The Tibetan Book of the Dead
| calls the Clear Light?" I was doubtful. "Would it keep the
| evil away, if you could hold it? Or would you not be able to
| hold it?" I considered the question for some time. "Perhaps,"
| I answered at last, "perhaps I could - but only if there were
| somebody there to tell me about the Clear Light. One couldn't
| do it by oneself. That's the point, I suppose, of the Tibetan
| ritual - somebody sitting there all the time and telling you
| what's what." [Doors of Perception, 57-58]
| ve55 wrote:
| I like the idea but I think there's probably a few too many chat
| apps going around already as well.
| tomcam wrote:
| Which ones should be eliminated?
| cpach wrote:
| Evolution will take care of that. A lot of them will simply
| fizzle out.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Beware evolution's pruning. It optimises for survival (and
| as a consequence, reproduction and ruthlessness), which is
| often at odds with what people value.
| didericis wrote:
| I get your point, but a product is only bought or used if
| people value it in some way (whether for good reasons or
| bad reasons), so product evolution has people's values
| built into the process.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Product evolution has people's _actions_ built into the
| process. Who, before playing Farmville, would value
| spending $1000 on digital sheep?
| didericis wrote:
| People's actions reflect their true values. The sad truth
| is that people paying $1000 for digital sheep value the
| immediate gratification of the game more than other uses
| of that money at the moment of purchase.
|
| Addictive products designed to exploit our baser
| instincts are dangerous, so again, I get and agree with
| your point, but I think it's important to remember that
| voluntarily purchased products are by definition valued
| by the people who purchase them. The values of the people
| purchasing products are an intrinsic part of product
| evolution.
| orblivion wrote:
| I picked up The Selfish Gene because I was hoping to
| figure out how JavaScript got so popular.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| It got so popular because it was the only available
| language to do web scripting. It's not that complicated.
| It's easy to "win" when no competition is allowed. You
| can argue that there's CoffeeScript, etc, but every other
| language is still a second-class citizen in the web
| ecosystem. WebAssembly may change that once it's stable
| and mature enough, though again, you have the problem
| that the DOM APIs were designed for JavaScript, which
| will create an impedance mismatch with other languages.
| swirepe wrote:
| Any insights?
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| IMO, JavaScript became the most popular language in the
| world because:
|
| 1) Everyone with a modern, full-featured browser already
| has it. There's nothing to install. It's the modern
| equivalent of the built-in BASIC in the early
| microcomputers.
|
| 2) "View Source" lets you see exactly how something was
| done at the click of a mouse. This is _invaluable_ for
| learning.
|
| 3) Writing it and debugging it just requires a text
| editor and the browser mentioned before, not some baroque
| toolchain. You can even modify it and rerun it from
| directly within the browser, most of which have fairly
| sophisticated JS debuggers built in nowadays.
|
| 4) Rich text, GUI widgets, networking...all that stuff is
| already baked into the browser cake. You don't need to
| fool around with a separate libraries.
|
| 5) Interpreted, so iterative development is fast.
|
| 6) Forgiving (some would say "sloppy"), so beginners
| don't get overwhelmed with type systems and similar
| shizzle ("Why _can 't_ I just add 1 and 0.5? WTF?") Of
| course, this also brings problems along with it. No free
| lunches.
|
| Some other languages, on some platforms, have some of
| these features, but none to my knowledge has all of them.
|
| For example, Linux systems do come with C, and do have
| the source code available, but looking up the line of
| source that produced exactly what you're seeing on the
| screen in, say, an X program, is a far more involved
| process than just right-clicking it and choosing "View
| Source".
|
| Node, in turn, became popular because JavaScript is
| popular.
|
| That's my take, FWIW.
| orblivion wrote:
| Only about a third of the way through, but I've picked up
| some great insights in general. Nothing about JavaScript
| (yet).
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Probably not. JavaScript's so popular because the web is
| the universal cross-platform target, and Node.JS has a
| _slightly_ lower barrier-to-entry to Hello World than
| learning a new language. You 'll want to study energetics
| to understand that.
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| On the other hand, the chat system that "survives" is
| probably the best one to use in the long-term.
|
| Features, integrations, and a slick UI are great, but
| without a stable community of maintainers the project if
| probably not a good candidate for long-term use.
|
| An open, federate-able messaging protocol is also a good
| thing to have! (email, XMPP, Matrix)
| amelius wrote:
| Sadly, evolution seems to not converge to a single chat
| standard.
| cpach wrote:
| Indeed.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| I've developed a great social media system that's basically a
| centralized system, although I added Fediverse capability to it
| recently. It's here: https://quanta.wiki.
|
| I'm looking for a way to leverage Quanta's power on top of some
| kind of true peer-to-peer architecture to make it censorship
| resistant, because BigTech has just now gone nuclear in their
| censorship efforts.
|
| So I'm currently trying to find the right peer-to-peer (won't be
| ActivityPub) infrastructure, to let Quanta instances network
| better.
| antris wrote:
| >BigTech has just now gone nuclear in their censorship efforts
|
| Who's being censored? Twitter, Facebook etc. are private
| platforms and they've been banning users who break their TOS
| throughout their histories.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| Private entities can and do engage in censorship.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| The best analogy to help low-information people understand
| this is to just remind them that AT&T owns the hardware and
| can shut down people too. Do we want powerful companies to
| be allowed to censor Americans at their whim is the
| question. I say no.
| deanstag wrote:
| Does that mean an alternative solution would allow
| inciting violence?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| So lobby the government to break up AT&T so they don't
| have monopoly power... (oh wait)
| antris wrote:
| Sure, but the parent poster seems to imply that banning
| people who incite violence on social media is somehow a new
| thing or "going nuclear" with censorship.
|
| Trump got clapped not because of censorship, but because
| social media platforms decided to no longer exempt him from
| their TOS because of his position. Any normal person
| posting similar content would have been banned ages ago.
| Besides, he is the POTUS who can go on TV any time he
| wants. Thinking that he cannot get his message out there is
| ridiculous.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| Trump never called for any violence. However there are
| lots of left wing people on Twitter calling for violence
| and the left-wing operated BigTech think that's just
| fine, while they will ban any right wing person at the
| drop of a hat for completely made-up reasons like saying
| something wrong about gender pronouns. Look the Joe Rogan
| podcast with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey, and try to educate
| yourself.
| antris wrote:
| >Trump never called for any violence
|
| Alright, so finally after a few seemingly innocuous
| arguments you took your mask off. A person who believes
| storming the Capitol was not organized by Trump at this
| point would be able to find a justification to anything
| he says or does.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| This is an example of black-and-white logic, tribalism,
| and an inability to comprehend nuance. I can state any
| number of the 100s of lies and hoaxes told about Trump
| and the only thing Democrats can hear is a "praise" of
| Trump, rather than a statement of fact.
| blindgeek wrote:
| Trump was also great advertising for Twitter, just like
| he was great for the news media. I'd argue that Big
| Media, Inc. is deeply complicit in the rise of Donald
| Trump. He was the goose that laid the golden egg.
| Additionally, the media mergers of the 80s and 90s gave
| us right-wing talk radio on the AM band, sewing the
| spores of hate from which the vile toadstool of Trumpism
| bloomed.
|
| Big Tech, Inc., with its algorithms that promote radical
| right-wing content, also seems suspect.
|
| To me the solution to all of these problems is to break
| up conglomerates and monopolies. Let's have more
| decentralization and more "small is beautiful" tech, like
| the chat system presented here. Let a million flowers
| blossom, smothering the aforementioned toadstool.
| (Wandering off to look at installing Cabal).
| dang wrote:
| This has been and is being discussed in so many HN threads
| right now that this is not a great place to re-rehearse the
| same flamewars. Let's not let the generic drown out the
| specific--that's the main thing that reduces intellectual
| curiosity on the site.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?query=generic%20discussion%20by:dang.
| ..
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| (Yes, the GP comment started it by including flamebait, but
| it's not necessary to take the bait, and the guidelines ask
| everyone to resist that.)
| antris wrote:
| Yeah, fair enough. I'm just worried about these kinds of
| statements going unchallenged.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| I started using the term "nuclear" once Amazon Cloud Services
| decided to terminate the Parler web server hosting.
|
| If internet service providers can shut down speech they
| disagree with, by going after the servers, then we're no
| longer living in a democracy.
| dmerks wrote:
| As far as I know, AWS is not an ISP-- it's a business, a
| bit like the one not selling cakes to homosexual
| individuals.
| antris wrote:
| It's more akin to "no shirt no service". Parler can
| continue using Amazon if they moderate their platform,
| you can put on a shirt to get a cake. You cannot change
| your sexuality or skin color.
| aquadrop wrote:
| You can change your religion. Should amazon be able to
| tell to scram fx to some scientology church website
| hosting?
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| You can't moderate a platform if there's millions of
| people posting and only a handful of moderators.
|
| Remember, AT&T is also incapable of stopping criminals
| from conspiring using text/telephone messages...and based
| on your logic the Feds could just shut down AT&T and
| blame AT&T for being "complicit". No obviously that's
| moronic. Wake up and stop giving our rights away.
| Eventually you're going to loose your own.
| jv22222 wrote:
| I "think" that's a false equivalency because democracy is
| the government and private companies are something
| different.
| antris wrote:
| >If internet service providers can shut down speech they
| disagree with, by going after the servers, then we're no
| longer living in a democracy.
|
| You present this as if Parler is being shut down because
| people there have the wrong opinion on tax rates.
|
| People on Parler are planning violent fascist overthrow of
| government, which is illegal. Why would Amazon be obligated
| to host sites that cater to terrorists?
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| The social media purge began long before Parler even
| existed. Yes people _are_ getting banned from Twitter for
| life for having the wrong political opinions. It you deny
| that everyone knows you 're either dishonest or
| uninformed.
|
| People on the left are allowed to call for violence and
| say all kinds of racist things hate filled things, but if
| someone on the right even says something like "There are
| only two sexes" that's enough to get banned for life. The
| only reason the democrats all deny the existence of any
| double-standard is because MSM and BigTech happen to be
| in their tribe, so they all dare not call out one of
| their own.
| antris wrote:
| "BigTech has gone nuclear with censorship" immediately
| after a coup attempt is a wildly different statement than
| "there is a long-running political double standard that
| exists in tech companies when it comes to enforcing their
| TOS". Should I take take it that you have conceded your
| previous statement?
|
| I would like to complete the discussion on the previous
| point before moving on to another topic of discussion.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| Trump organized a demonstration. That's the American way
| of voicing political dissent.
|
| If a politician organizes a peaceful rally and violent
| people show up and do violent things, and you blame the
| politician for the violence, then I'm curious about
| something.... Do you hold the Democrats responsible for
| all the violence of 2020 when we had cities burning down,
| and the MSM saying things like "Who ever said protests
| had to be peaceful"
|
| The Democrats calling the capitol mob a "coup de tat
| attempt" is absolutely hilarious and just shows their
| complete lunacy in their attempt to vilify the other
| side, even when they're clearly just being absurd. It was
| a mob who were let into a building. Hell they didn't even
| damage any of the priceless paintings. If anyone's to
| blame is was the security who let the doors get breached
| when their job was to guard the building with machine
| guns.
| djtriptych wrote:
| when the "speech" consists of active planning of mass
| violence it's obviously no longer protected.
|
| The whole point of Parler is to be a safe haven for speech
| that has already been banned elsewhere, for the same
| reason. It was doomed from the start.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| If you really believe the social media purge is about
| stopping violence then you've been hoodwinked. People who
| haven been watching this censorship battle for years know
| this is purely about taking down political adversaries.
| jb775 wrote:
| If you broke the TOS of your water company, would it be
| acceptable for them to cut the water connection to your
| house?
|
| I mean if you don't like it, you could always just go pick up
| your own water...or install underground pipes to a local
| water source.
| antris wrote:
| Having your message broadcasted through Twitter is not a
| human right or essential to your survival. Also, what kind
| of TOS would a water company have that you can break? This
| example is ridiculous.
| jb775 wrote:
| Sorry, but since the water company is privately owned
| they can do whatever they please. If you don't like it,
| you can build your own water company. Thanks!
|
| ...now you know how it feels for anyone on the opposite
| side of your argument.
| fishtacos wrote:
| Please post a link to the terms of service of your water
| company.
|
| I'm doubtful there is no clause in your
| city's/county's/municipality's/state's, etc. that allows
| them to interrupt service without cause. That's why terms
| of service exist.
|
| Now I'm genuinely curious to find out what terms of
| service you agreed to with the private water company.
| What type of settlement do you live in?
| antris wrote:
| Nah. The water infrastructure at my home isn't owned by a
| private company. I live in a state that has this radical
| policy that water is a human right and should not be
| commoditized.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| On a related note: The Governor of California was cutting
| off electricity and water to homes for the crime of
| "peaceful assembly", recently... so it's not just free
| speech that's under assault, but probably you could say
| _most_ rights, at this point.
|
| The good ol' democrat mantra: "Never let a good crisis go
| to waste."
| astura wrote:
| What? I have municipal water.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| The obvious point is that both internet and water are
| public services, and the minute we let companies start
| cutting off services for political reasons we no longer
| have a democracy.
| orf wrote:
| I'm sure you can see how patently absurd comparing a
| provider of liquid essential to human life to... Twitter
| is.
| fishtacos wrote:
| What kind of analogy is that? Tweets vs. water?
|
| Also, yes, you would not be provided
| water/electricity/cable/internet/pudding if you broke their
| terms of service. Apart from not paying your bill and
| perhaps willful destruction of their equipment, I'm having
| a hard time trying to come up with how else one breaks the
| terms of service for utility services. That sounds
| completely normal to me.
|
| Additionally, people do go without certain utilities in
| times of economic hardship - this is nothing new. We're not
| guaranteed access any such services.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| Well if big companies get to just set arbitrary rules
| that discriminate against one set of political beliefs,
| what does that say about "Civil Rights" then? I guess
| you're not a big fan of civil rights...
|
| Or, more likely, is it only when companies are doing
| things you agree with that you'll claim they have
| absolute power and authority? If you understand history,
| you might see the flaw in this logic.
| flal_ wrote:
| The name clash with Haskell's build tool is unfortunate...
| rtkwe wrote:
| The namespace is pretty cluttered at this point. Most posts on
| HN about a new app/project/library/etc have at least one "name
| is already taken by ...." post under them.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes, but is that name really fitting?
| orblivion wrote:
| Yes because it's always conspiring against you.
|
| (credit goes to someone else for this one)
| marcod wrote:
| Yeah, I installed the wrong package initially ;)
| allenleein wrote:
| Should change it to stack
| olah_1 wrote:
| Have there been any breakthroughs recently? Or just sharing to
| share?
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Think of it this way, if 4chan wasn't a website, no one would
| allow it to exist.
|
| Web technology has a certain responsibility, so I think all the
| alternative communication tech is in response to the theme of
| this week.
| cutehax wrote:
| Agreed, context here is timely for sure. Large groups perhaps
| trying to secretly coordinate online to stage an '' event''?
| Web technologies for this are abundant; and yet so very
| easily infiltrated. End to end encryption is redundant if
| you've no idea who to trust.
| yamrzou wrote:
| There has been a number of HN submissions about
| decentralization and Internet freedom today, probably as a
| reaction to the deplatforming of Parler:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25706993
| whoknew1122 wrote:
| Probably not a coincidence that this gets posted with no
| context the day that Parler gets kicked off AWS.
|
| I presume it's someone trying to offer Cabal as a Parler
| alternative.
| bastard_op wrote:
| My thoughts exactly, the Donald Chumps will take this up.
| Good news: Massive influx of users. Bad news: It's all
| American Fascists looking to hold hands. Saving grace is most
| are probably too stupid to read hacker news.
| deeviant wrote:
| Don't be so sure. Trump-Qanon supporters seem to be pretty
| common around here. They were very active in the "Trump
| banned from twitter" post.
|
| Doesn't surprise me as (Trump|QAnon)'ism seems to be very
| inviting to the tech bro culture.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Does "Free speech applies to Qanaon supporters as much as
| it does to me and thee." make me a Qanon supporter?
| dangus wrote:
| > Saving grace is most are probably too stupid to read
| hacker news.
|
| I wouldn't make this assumption. I have seen plenty of
| modern conservative opinion around here, and some of it
| really does align with ideas of white male supremacy and
| support for fascist authoritarian leadership. It's easier
| to find on "new" on posts that aren't strictly technology
| related. They are definitely here.
|
| Of course, people are entitled to their opinions. 99.9% of
| normal liberal or conservative Americans aren't going to
| get violent or take part in an insurrection. Nothing wrong
| with a having and expressing opinions.
|
| But to me, the concern here isn't even what happened a few
| days ago at the Capitol. My concern is the mass
| radicalization of the right wing of politics, and therefore
| _people_ , in America. This radicalization is mainstream
| because the media outlets pushing the ideas are themselves
| mainstream, more mainstream than you think.
|
| E.g. my family members, who are not deep down anything
| truly radical like the Q rabbit hole, but still believe
| it's okay for Trump to be "joking" about 12 more years,
| running contrary to elementary school civics lessons that
| were supposed to be universal common ground. They got these
| ideas from America's number one cable news channel, not
| some obscure Internet forum.
| throwaway80332 wrote:
| The thing that I find most terrifying about Trump is that
| he persued every legal option to win, and when that
| didn't work out he conceded and said he's going to help
| make sure there's a smooth transition of power.
|
| He is truly the most vile authoritarian anywhere outside
| of the 1930s Germany, and that's not just because he
| makes jokes.
| greatgirl wrote:
| I doubt that https://github.com/cabal-
| club/commons/blob/master/values.md#...
| gojomo wrote:
| But if architected for openness without central censorship
| chokepoints, such affinity declarations can't alone prevent
| participation. Mastodon's tech is used by Gab, for example.
|
| At best this can:
|
| * influence the observable qualities of the closely-
| collaborating dev community - who'll have to outwardly
| project these values.
|
| * lead to the prioritization of decentralized user-driven
| moderation features, which still allow the disfavored
| groups to communicate with other willing audiences, with
| minimized impact on unwilling audiences.
| g8oz wrote:
| Just the place to plan a second attack on the Capitol.
| ehayes wrote:
| Cool, we've jumped right into "if you want to be independent
| from FaceAppAmaGooMicroTwitBookTube, it's just because you're a
| right-wing fascist plotting an attack." Way to go everyone.
| api wrote:
| It kind of is, even if it is not intended to be. Here's how
| it works.
|
| Deplatforming by the major social platforms is actually a way
| for them to create a moat. The field is now salted with toxic
| lunatics looking for a platform. Anyone who tries to stand up
| another social will instantly be inundated by them, and their
| presence will drive everyone else away and back into the arms
| of the incumbents.
|
| Social is now like a zombie flick. There are walled gardens
| where it is safe, but outside stalk the walking dead. Trying
| to build another shelter is an exercise in repelling the
| undead long enough to get some walls up.
| deeviant wrote:
| To be fair, at this moment in time, the vast majority of
| likely users for a project like this, *are* the Trump/Qanon
| crowd that feel dejected that they will be held to any sort
| of accountability for their inflammatory rhetoric, lies and
| conspiracy theories.
| colesantiago wrote:
| open source software at this point is just a pawn for being
| misused by extremists.
|
| someone once said 'the road to hell is paved with good
| intentions' or something like that.
|
| anyway, i'll get some friends on there and organise a attack
| party.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > open source software at this point is just a pawn for being
| misused by extremists.
|
| This comment makes me question if you know what open source
| software is.
| scrps wrote:
| I wonder if this (baffling) line of reasoning will become
| the new "Open Source/FOSS is Communism" of the late '90s
| early '00s...
| colesantiago wrote:
| 1. get banned from platform.
|
| 2. move to another platform.
|
| 3. spew shit.
|
| 4. go to step 1.
|
| If the above happens for a certain amount of time, think
| about what the extremists are going to use when they
| finally realise they need to "build their own" stuff?
|
| The next one after Mastodon will probably be Matrix and by
| then it's already too late.
| WC3w6pXxgGd wrote:
| You think Mastodon / the Fediverse is on the way, and
| Matrix is a replacement?
| qorrect wrote:
| I still don't know what's wrong with IRC.
| based2 wrote:
| https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/113532/how-is-i...
| anthk wrote:
| Meh. IRC now can use TLS/SSL (Freenode), among SASL.
|
| On X11 vulns, I use a tty, so I don't care, and even on X,
| xterm has a secure mode.
| hu3 wrote:
| Different goals. IRC needs a central server. This is peer-to-
| peer.
| agentdrtran wrote:
| some people want more than plain text
| rcxdude wrote:
| Multimedia, end-to-end encryption, offline chat history, and
| having all those features actually available and usable by the
| average user (just having a persistent identity is something
| IRC makes trickier than it needs to). You may decide those are
| misfeatures, but most people don't.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| Does IRC have "conversation threads?" To me a conversation
| thread necessarily entails a hierarchical chain of posts and
| the replies to those posts as "child nodes". All conversations
| are inherently "tree structures" if done right, imo.
| greatgirl wrote:
| Not user friendly. Not everyone is an internet nerd like us.
| oftheoaks wrote:
| Us cabal devs really like irc. Cabal was inspired in part by
| it. You might enjoy this explanatory zine:
|
| https://substack.net/zine/cabal.html
| rex_lupi wrote:
| why would I want yet another chat platform when there's already
| Matrix/IRC/XMPP/telegram/signal, and oh yes, Whatsapp etc?
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| Part of what the world needs is not just the "app", but an app
| that's Open Source MIT License, so everyone has complete
| freedom, rather than the original authors being able to dictate
| certain terms going forward, and maintain control.
|
| I've done 90% of the difficult coding in https://quanta.wiki,
| which is MIT License. I just need to add the P2P part. Maybe
| I'm sounding like Ali G. when he invented the "flying
| skateboard" and had everything solved except for the "physics".
| :)
| Yoric wrote:
| I should add that Matrix p2p has been demonstrated. My
| understanding is that it's not ready for prime time just yet,
| but it works.
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| Wait, what? Matrix is working on p2p protocols?
| amelius wrote:
| Couldn't the entire P2P part be abstracted away from it, so
| a chat client could work with _any_ P2P technology in
| principle?
| Arathorn wrote:
| https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix
| /
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| Oh wow! I must have missed that somehow! Very
| interesting!
|
| I have been a fan of Matrix for a long time and have been
| very excited by all of the progress made recently!
| Particularly, the new UI experience for E2E encrypted
| channels is amazing! You managed to get solid security
| without sacrificing usability.
|
| Thank you for your dedication to Matrix and its
| community!
| Arathorn wrote:
| thanks :) There's still a way to go on E2EE UX and sadly,
| but we're working on it.
| Multicomp wrote:
| this is why i resist new chat apps....signal is tiding me
| over until p2p capable, e2e by default matrix is ready to
| go on desktop, android and ios...then i will be ready to
| use, donate, buy vector hosting, and evangelize oodles.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| I think it's basically hit all of those but p2p?
| Multicomp wrote:
| Correct AFAIK. I was speaking more broadly about it to
| explain my effusive plans
| jlkuester7 wrote:
| That seems fair. Though, personally, as long as it can
| federate, I am less concerned about p2p. Some very nice
| features are a lot harder (impossible?) to make work in a
| pure p2p setup whereas federation seems to give you the
| best of both worlds. (AKA the benefits of an always-
| available server without the vender lock.)
|
| That is actually the big thing I don't like about Signal.
| If Open Wisper Systems decides tomorrow to turn off their
| server, everyones' Signal client are broke...
| lemonspat wrote:
| This looks promising. Is there a web client, or only a desktop
| client?
| oftheoaks wrote:
| Right now it's desktop and terminal only, but there is a lot of
| interest in web and mobile clients.
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| If you want the best Web App in the world take my codebase
| (quanta.wiki) and built on top of it. The whole thing is a
| simple tree structure, on MongoDB, using a 'path-based' tree
| so you don't even have to learn a specific relational
| database structuring, and you can put something else on the
| back end to replace MongoDB. If you like
| Java+TypeScript+React then I've given you a 250,000 loc head
| start.
| ReactiveJelly wrote:
| Checked the FAQ.
|
| Downside: It doesn't support Tor and they don't seem to have any
| plan for that. So it's trusted-friends-only, IPs are always
| visible. Which is pointless for me, as a person trying to build
| healthy online friendships from behind Tor.
|
| Upside: I was afraid it's a reaction to Parler being
| deplatformed. And then I thought maybe it was a side-project of
| Urbit. But looking at the Values page: "No nazis, no TERFs, no
| alt-right--or anyone friendly with them"
|
| So that's cool.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| I wish they excluded extremes on both sides of the spectrum.
| Otherwise, it makes Cabal seem like a Parler for the extreme
| left.
|
| (Maybe it is not; I know nothing about people behind Cabal.)
| m1sta_ wrote:
| Obvious conclusion since everything that isn't far-right is
| far-left. /s
| snowflake_ptr wrote:
| More like anyone who's willing to condemn one extreme but
| not the other is almost certainly supporting the latter.
| williamtwild wrote:
| Oh shut up. What a crybaby.
| eznzt wrote:
| > as a person trying to build healthy online friendships from
| behind Tor.
|
| As someone who's spent a lot of time on Tor-related IRC
| channels and other communities, gl lol
| snowflake_ptr wrote:
| > or anyone friendly with them
|
| This is disgusting - it implies that you should pick and choose
| your friends based on political affiliation, which not only is
| extremely (and intentionally) divisive, but also provides no
| room for guiding these individuals back to a more moderate
| political stance.
|
| Without being friends (or at least interacting with) with those
| who have been ostracized by society, how, exactly, do you
| propose to try to get them to change their minds?
|
| I'm also curious as to how they plan to enforce this constraint
| - Cabal appears to be completely decentralized, correct?
| fortran77 wrote:
| The word Cabal comes from Hebrew. It probably grew about because
| outsiders perceived the people who studied Jewish mysticism as
| being part of some secret society.
|
| See Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-10 23:00 UTC)