Jeff, thanks for great feedback and the great news that you are working on GNS for Tor. I had a long debate on social networking over Tor early this year where the discussion led us to theorizing using more GNUnet routing in the hidden service backend, possibly including multicast for scalability, thus enabling social networking.
Ed wrote: > > But if the attitude is to try to build a network that helps people that > > don't yet care--or that don't care enough to abandon their comfortable > > computing environment--then you're going to have to build tools for those > > platforms. On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Jeff Burdges wrote: > No. Revolutions are never about appealing to everyone. Indeed, Ed. People who favor convenience will not be interested in a distributed social network anyway if they already have a broad choice of apparent alternatives to Facebook that come with fancy apps that make a true libre alternative hard to stand out. They way to get these folks could be completely different: We build a momentum of people who do care and organize strong enough that a distributed social network is a fully integrated natural experience on all libre platforms. That makes millions of people happily enjoying a degree of privacy no-one would hope for today. Then the iPhone peeps will get the feeling they are missing a trend.. THAT IS WHAT HURTS.. BEING LATE TO A PARTY!!1 So they will suddenly be interested in a single practical package that jailbreaks the phone and installs gnunet/secushare on it, and even feel cool about having done something naughty. Should that prove wrong we still have option two: mandating a libre distributed social network by law since whatever is out there today is anti-constitutional. In that case Apple will have to comply if it intends to continue selling iPhones in those countries that adopt such a law. In either case it is a losing strategy to try to play by the rules of the market and the market owners, putting libre users at risk (one iPhone friend could be enough to expose your privacy) for the gain of hardly catching the attention of the distracted average Apple consumer. > We should instead worry that people to actually enjoy using our tools. > I suppose this means eventually moving towards the TextSecure > development ideology : > https://github.com/WhisperSystems/TextSecure/blob/master/contributing.md Truths which we believe to be self-evident: 1. The answer is not more options. If you feel compelled to add a preference that's exposed to the user, it's very possible you've made a wrong turn somewhere. 2. The user doesn't know what a key is. We need to minimize the points at which a user is exposed to this sort of terminology as extremely as possible. 3. There are no power users. The idea that some users "understand" concepts better than others has proven to be, for the most part, false. If anything, "power users" are more dangerous than the rest, and we should avoid exposing dangerous functionality to them. 4. If it's "like PGP," it's wrong. PGP is our guide for what not to do. 5. It's an asynchronous world. Be wary of anything that is anti-asynchronous: ACKs, protocol confirmations, or any protocol-level "advisory" message. 6. There is no such thing as time. Protocol ideas that require synchronized clocks are doomed to failure. Sounds all familiar and reasonable to me... In the area 1-3 gnunet needs some work but I think it is doing good on 4-6. -- E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption: http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/ irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/ _______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
