On Sun, 24 Jul 2022, 25B.Z959 wrote:

> On 7/24/22 8:18 PM, Bud Spencer wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2022, voyager55 wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/23/2022 5:50:29 PM, Bud Spencer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2022, voyager55 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Retroshare, an interesting chatroom/IM/Usenet/E-mail/p2p file sharing
>>>>> app,
>>>>> has the tech part on lock, but my time in their Usenet-esque section
>>>>> was rather unnerving. Actual-antisemitism (i.e. calls to 'finish the
>>>>> job'), bomb-making instructions, unhinged conspiracy theories and
>>>>> 'erotica' involving violence were just a handful of the topics
>>>>> represented.
>>>>> I'm not quite sure where the line is drawn, but "free speech for them
>>>>> too"
>>>>> meant Retroshare was philosophically consistent at the expense of making
>>>>> the community somewhere I'd never recommend to anyone else. A community
>>>>> that *can* become like that *will* become like that eventually.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure you understand how RetroShare works ... It's not ??community
>>>> ?? that
>>>> you walk into. RetroShare is just a decentralised secure communication
>>>> thingie you can use with your friends and such. In order you get that
>>>> kind
>>>>
>>>> of content you described, YOU have to go to nodes that are serving that
>>>> kind of content. Nothing to do with the RetroShare, really. Everyone have
>>>>
>>>> their own nodes, you did too when you used it. Not sure how and why you
>>>> ended up with such places ... and what is this "usenet-esque" thing you
>>>> are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> From RetroShare website:
>>>>
>>>> How does it work?
>>>>
>>>> Retroshare allows you to create a network of computers (called nodes).
>>>> Every user has it's own node. The exact location (the IP-address) of
>>>> nodes
>>>>
>>>> is only known to neighbor nodes. You invite a person to become a neighbor
>>>>
>>>> by exchanging your Retroshare certificates with that person.
>>>>
>>>> Links between nodes are authenticated using strong asymmetric keys (PGP
>>>> format) and encrypted using Perfect Forward Secrecy (OpenSSL
>>>> implementation of TLS).
>>>>
>>>> On top of the network mesh, Retroshare provides services to securely and
>>>> anonymously exchange data with other nodes in the network beyond your own
>>>>
>>>> friends.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Seems too nice to be true. What's the catch?
>>>>
>>>> There is no catch. Retroshare is provided free of charge and does not
>>>> generate any kind of money. It is the result of hard work that is only
>>>> driven by the goals of providing a tool to evade censorship.
>>>>
>>>> The only catch is that you will need to build your own network: in order
>>>> to use Retroshare, you have to recruit friends and exchange certificates
>>>> with them, or join an existing network of friends.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Like it's said above "The only catch is that you will need to build your
>>>> own network".
>>>>
>>>> ??? BUD ???
>>>>
>>>
>>> I get how Retroshare works, and from a technical standpoint, I think it's
>>> fantastic. In practice, however, the exception you take to my experience
>>> does two
>>> things: it proves my point and reflects the difference between Retroshare
>>> and
>>> Twitter.
>>>
>>> When one starts up Retroshare for the first time and makes the certs and
>>> so
>>> forth, it's an empty slate. This reveals the problem Retroshare has with
>>> the
>>> network effect: while everyone uses Twitter because everyone uses Twitter,
>>> telling your friends "use Retroshare so we can make our own network" is an
>>> incredibly uphill battle that doesn't involve finding new people one
>>> doesn't
>>> already know.
>>> So, the go-to solution for growing one's network in order to engage in a
>>> community is to do what I did: do some Google searches and add random
>>> users who
>>> post their public keys on message boards and start growing the network.
>>> This is
>>> what I did, which led to the Newcomers Lobby I ended up joining, where
>>> people
>>> exchanged keys readily. I had nearly 200 people in my network at this
>>> point; many
>>> of them were unconnectable (one of Retroshare's issues is that it's
>>> extremely
>>> limited when users have CGNAT)...but I did have a pretty decent number of
>>> 'friends of friends' that yielded some actual chatrooms and some posts on
>>> the
>>> asynchronous one-to-many message boards (the "usenet-esque" function I
>>> described). It was at this point where I started encountering the content
>>> I
>>> described.
>>>
>>> Retroshare works when the goal is for an insular community to connect, but
>>> that's
>>> not creating new connections. Moreover, even when a set of users do what I
>>> did,
>>> communication isn't necessarily effective - message board replies may not
>>> replicate all the way back to the person to whom one replies. Usenet
>>> solves this
>>> with NNTP peering, but Retroshare has no similar mechanism beyond nodes
>>> that are
>>> functionally centralized.
>>>
>>> All of that being said, the point I was making about Retroshare is that
>>> the
>>> community that I stumbled into was the sort of community that most people
>>> would
>>> consider 'unwelcoming' at the very least. "Just disconnect from those
>>> nodes"
>>> becomes extremely difficult to implement on any kind of scale, especially
>>> due to
>>> how Retroshare handles replication through 2nd-order nodes.
>>
>> All the tings you describet above haven't anything but ones own doing. Yet,
>> you still kinda blame the means for your actions ... peculiar might some
>> say. I'm not one of those. I just say, meh.
>>
>
> The "tings you describet" he went into are quite relevant.
>
> Building Twitter/FB/IG replacements is a FORMIDIBLE task.
> As said, people sign up for these things because everybody
> else did so - they KNOW there will be a big 'community'
> to make things interesting - to see and be seen.
>
> Sorry, but at this juncture, if you value Free Speech/Ideas
> you CAN'T really build a new service - you have to seize
> control of the existing services.
>
> It does not require force of arms or a revolution - it
> requires MONEY, lots and lots of MONEY, and the WILL to
> change things. As much as 'conservatives' (rightfully)
> bitch I haven't seen them just BUYING these services
> even though the money IS out there. I think this is quite
> deliberate - in order to preserve a useful enemy.
>
> Machiavelli said that there is just no substitute for
> an Enemy Of The People ... and if there aren't any then
> you must INVENT/CULTIVATE such Enemies. THEN you can
> crusade against them, get vast public support and the
> power that goes with that AND the liberty to employ
> 'emergency authority'.
>
> The politics of power hasn't changed in thousands
> of years. Machiavelli was mostly referencing Roman
> political wisdom - which was still employed in
> his day AND still in OUR day. Modern communications
> tech has slightly changed the look and feel of
> The Big Game, but the fundamentals do NOT change.
> Humans still have the same "buttons" to press and
> NEVER seem to catch on that they're being played.

Sorry ... but your incoherent rambling doesn't make any sense ... WTF you
mean with "Humans still have the same "buttons" to press"

Please elaborate, or am I just too fucking dumb?

--
₪ BUD ₪