On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:01:20PM +0200, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:58:13 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > Dont implement this. I dont like CP, but once you start down the
> > slippery slope, there's no going
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:58:13PM -0500, OverlordQ wrote:
Dont implement this. I dont like CP, but once you start down the
slippery slope, there's no going back.
Why? Why is censorship by the (overwhelming) majority a bad thing?
my $.02
Because it's all too subje
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:58:13 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Dont implement this. I dont like CP, but once you start down the
> slippery slope, there's no going back.
>
> my $.02
Exactly my point!
As a matter of fact, How about implementing something ver
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:46:59PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2005, at 17:14, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:27:31PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> >
> >>I'm not getting sucked into this, mainly because I share Matthew
> >>Exon's position on this and he is doing a prett
On 13 Jul 2005, at 17:14, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:27:31PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
I'm not getting sucked into this, mainly because I share Matthew
Exon's position on this and he is doing a pretty good job of
defending it. Censorship by majority is just as bad as cen
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:27:31PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I'm not getting sucked into this, mainly because I share Matthew
> Exon's position on this and he is doing a pretty good job of
> defending it. Censorship by majority is just as bad as censorship by
> your government, if not worse
I'm not getting sucked into this, mainly because I share Matthew
Exon's position on this and he is doing a pretty good job of
defending it. Censorship by majority is just as bad as censorship by
your government, if not worse in many cases.
Toad, if you lived in Iran just how far do you thi
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 03:48:13PM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
>
> >>Why do I, or Chinese christians, care whether the content is being
> >>distributed openly or secretly? It's still being distributed, righ
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
Why do I, or Chinese christians, care whether the content is being
distributed openly or secretly? It's still being distributed, right?
It's entirely possible that Al Qaeda are swapping jokes about the Lond
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:01:15PM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
> >
> >No, we're not. We know for example that child porn is not being *openly*
> >distributed. And this is for a very broad definition of open. On IIP I
> >knew a certain channel where you could obtain keys for such filth; on a
> >netwo
Matthew Toseland wrote:
I meant primarily human bandwidth. It is more hassle to have two nodes,
especially as you need people to connect to, and different voting rules.
Ah. Yes, that's true. But getting access to the nice darknet should be
pretty easy in comparison to getting access to the
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:58:13PM -0500, OverlordQ wrote:
> Dont implement this. I dont like CP, but once you start down the
> slippery slope, there's no going back.
Why? Why is censorship by the (overwhelming) majority a bad thing?
>
> my $.02
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 08:21:10AM +0200, Tarapia Tapioco wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:59:13 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > /me renames Freenet PornNet. ;)
> > >=20
> > > I have
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:04:19PM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:33:59AM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
>
> >>Now, eventually everyone's going to behave the same way. Everyone will
> >>figure out that there's just no point posting star trek episod
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:33:59AM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
Now, eventually everyone's going to behave the same way. Everyone will
figure out that there's just no point posting star trek episodes to the
nasty darknet, since they'll always be more easily available on
Evan Daniel wrote:
It sounds to me like this has potential
to enforce groupthink through network value effects.
Please elaborate...
The central large network is against some content. The fact that it
is larger makes it much more valuable as a network. Therefore I am
inclined to act in suc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:59:13 -0400, you wrote:
>
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > /me renames Freenet PornNet. ;)
> >=20
> > I have friends who rsync their porn. But I can see your point. Is this
> > an issue only fo
Dont implement this. I dont like CP, but once you start down the
slippery slope, there's no going back.
my $.02
___
chat mailing list
chat@freenetproject.org
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freen
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:33:59AM +0200, Matthew Exon wrote:
> Evan Daniel wrote:
>
> >>>It sounds to me like this has potential
> >>>to enforce groupthink through network value effects.
> >>
> >>Please elaborate...
> >
> >
> >The central large network is against some content. The fact that it
>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:10:08PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > When you say "part of more than one darknet," are you referring to
> > > separate clusters within one large network, or entirely divorced
> > > networks?
> >
> > Divorced
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:59:13PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > /me renames Freenet PornNet. ;)
> >
> > I have friends who rsync their porn. But I can see your point. Is this
> > an issue only for porn? What class of material is subject
On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When you say "part of more than one darknet," are you referring to
> > separate clusters within one large network, or entirely divorced
> > networks?
>
> Divorced networks.
So, does that mean I have to run separate nodes, and participat
On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /me renames Freenet PornNet. ;)
>
> I have friends who rsync their porn. But I can see your point. Is this
> an issue only for porn? What class of material is subject to this
> consideration? Personally I avoid material that could be used
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
The network can't split. 50% isn't enough. You'd need a supermajority,
as I have explained - AT EACH NODE. It's not a global vote. Each node
would need 2/3rds of its connectio
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >The network can't split. 50% isn't enough. You'd need a supermajority,
> >as I have explained - AT EACH NODE. It's not a global vote. Each node
> >would need 2/3rds of its connections to vote, and would need
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:41:54PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:33:03AM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minorit
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:41:54PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:33:03AM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minority, the
> >>>expected resul
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:33:03AM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minority, the
expected result is that the minority would sever links with the
invaders - as a normal part of an uphel
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> > > On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the majority is wrong, it will disaf
On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> > On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are
> > > not talking about global voting
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are
> > not talking about global voting here, we are talking about each node
> > deciding on the basis o
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:33:03AM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >
> >Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minority, the
> >expected result is that the minority would sever links with the
> >invaders - as a normal part of an upheld complaint, because t
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:49:37PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are
> > not talking about global voting here, we are talking about each node
> > deciding on the basis o
On 7/12/05, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the majority is wrong, it will disaffiliate from the minority. We are
> not talking about global voting here, we are talking about each node
> deciding on the basis of adjacent, trusted nodes. Yes there is some
> influence as far as majo
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:06:35PM -0400, Ken Snider wrote:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
- Firstly, One of the first things that came to mind when you began this
quest to determine "trust", was that it creates a very real chance of
"groupthink" within freenet. Why?
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:06:35PM -0400, Ken Snider wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> >>- Firstly, One of the first things that came to mind when you began this
> >>quest to determine "trust", was that it creates a very real chance of
> >>"groupthink" within freenet. Why? Because, while it i
Matthew Toseland wrote:
- Firstly, One of the first things that came to mind when you began this
quest to determine "trust", was that it creates a very real chance of
"groupthink" within freenet. Why? Because, while it is difficult to
quantify when the method to *determine* this trust is still
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from
Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me):
*snip voting idea*
not only do I think this won't work for philosophical reasons, but I think
it underlines one of the most fundamental *weakne
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:52:30AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from
> >Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me):
>
> *snip voting idea*
>
> not only do I think this won't work for philosophica
39 matches
Mail list logo
