> Problem is, how does the sub-space founder know > that those who connect are abiding by the > no-bomb-recipe rule?
The way I imagine it would be something more akin to USEnet. I would be a member, and thus contribute my precious HD space to [EMAIL PROTECTED], genomeresearch.freenet, and mp3.freenet. These would be the only spaces I would be a 'member' of and thus contribute HD space to. Now granted there's nothing stopping someone from inserting divx movies in the mp3 freenet space, but what I'm _hoping_ is that instead of joining the mp3 freenet space and inserting divx movies, they would join the divx.freenet space, and insert movies there. If the freenets were segregated like this, I would think that pr0n would be likely to 'fall off' the marsexploration.freenet space. The model would make it beneficial for people to insert data into the appropriate sub-space. The freenet website mentions 'emergent behavior'. I think my scenario goes along with this quite well. You could look at these 'sub-spaces' as freenet 'organisms'. I see it as another level of complexity. It would seem to me that if freenet was divided into these 'sub-spaces', I gain two advantages. One is that I'm not participating in a network full of stuff I don't care about, and two, I would imagine that it would be a lot more efficient, considering that all my sub-space neighbour-nodes are in the same sub-space as myself, and thus more closely connected. For instance, I'm sure there are very few of us out there with hard-core interests in unusual shades of purple. However if there was a 'unusualshadesofpurple.freenet' sub-space, then we are almost assured that our data can be shared between us with rapidity, and that our data won't 'fall off' the 'general' network (granted we're dedicating enough HD space to our subspace). As I mentioned, I'm not a programmer, nor engineer, so I have no idea whether or not this scenario would account for more bandwidth overhead or not. Maybe it does. I'm not an expert. It might not work at all. In response to one reply: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am 100% in favor of free speech. In my little picture, while there would be python.freenet, gnu.freenet, thedoors.freenet and other (what I consider) "good" stuff, there would also probably be, in fact, howtokilllotsofpeople.freenet, nsync.freenet and what-not. One would hope that these latter freenets would be very small freenets, but I imagine they would exist. > But, to repeat many others, the same thing that > ensures the evil bastards get to do their thing > ensures that the good guys get to do their thing. My scenario doesn't change that basic fact, as I illustrate, it simply makes it to where the good guys get their stuff (possibly more efficiently) without dealing with the bad guys' stuff, and vice versa. Of course it also helps out the bad guys, but hey, whadda ya gonna do? > For example, the fact that freesites load faster > than websites in some circumstances. The fact > that information will travel closer to where > it's wanted, network-topology-wise. That is an advantage in closed-system or corporate scenarios, but it's also the very problem I see in the global scenario. The physical location of "lovers of day-old spam" may be widely dispersed, and thus when Kirk inserts his recipe, it's very likely to fall off the global freenet, because he's so many hops away from the other lovers. But if he can find a day-old spam lovers subspace, he's got it made. And there's the added bonus that the rest of us moral folk won't have to contribute our HD space to their immoral meat product interests. --Sam __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
