On Mon, 25 Jul 2022, 25B.Z959 wrote:

> 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.

Yes. Yes. Done. Done.

Try better.

--
₪ BUD ₪