On 7/25/22 10:09 AM, Bud Spencer wrote:
> 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.

Yes ... you must Try Better.

Then get back to us.