On 7/25/22 9:17 AM, Bud Spencer wrote:
> 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?

When (if) you went to school - did you ride in the
big bus, or the short bus ? Study Machiavelli yourself.
I'd recommend 'Discourses' over 'Prince' because the
previous supplies the WHY for the latter.

As for "buttons", try "The Technological Society"
by Jaques Ellul, old but good.