Follow

In "the hidden drawbacks of P2P", I discuss the implications of and , and restate the defense of I posted here in a thread a few days ago. changelog.complete.org/archive

@jgoerzen This reminds me: I'd be interested in integrating peer-to-peer hosting into some of my projects to help more people publish online outside of GAFAM, but I don't know who to trust to seriously consider privacy. I don't understand the necessary tradeoffs well enough!

I guess I'll continue pushing that off...

@alcinnz Hosting a Tor onion service isn't really P2P in the traditional sense, but would be a place to get started. You might also look into and .

@jgoerzen Good advice! I've heard about them, but I don't know much yet...

Freenet, crimes against minors mention 

@alcinnz
My issue with Freenet is that it's infamous for being used to host child porn. Really fucked up.

And then there's the weapons and drug stuff.

It seems that as soon as someone creates a secure, decentralized way to post content, illegal (and immoral) uses start to pop up.

No one wants to be associated with child porn.

@jgoerzen

Freenet, crimes against minors mention 

@yuki @alcinnz Ouch. I hadn't known that, but indeed nobody wants to be even remotely associated with that stuff. I'm not familiar with Freenet at any but a paragraph-level summary, and that is a powerful argument against it. I wonder if the same will happen to IPFS, with its lack of privacy controls? Maybe the lack of privacy controls is a plus in some ways.

Freenet, crimes against minors mention 

@jgoerzen
The real problem with freenet is that by using it, you are also hosting content (encrypted) which isn't yours. So by using it you might indirectly be hosting partial copies of illegal content. Due to the encryption it can't be proven you actually hosted X and Y content (IIRC), but it does present a moral objection to the network's use, similar to the "blood money" argument used against buying certain companies' products.
@alcinnz

Freenet, crimes against minors mention 

@yuki @alcinnz If I understand correctly, a difference with IPFS would be that you would only host things you explicitly viewed yourself, or injected into the system? Definitely an important distinction.

FreeNet vs IPFS 

@jgoerzen
Yes, exactly.

From the IPFS website:

> Each network node stores only content it is interested in, plus some indexing information that helps figure out which node is storing what.

This gives IPFS nodes control over what content they store; which makes IPFS a much safer alternative compared to FreeNet.

@alcinnz

FreeNet vs IPFS 

@yuki
But this also allows observing your interests.
@jgoerzen @alcinnz

@jgoerzen nice post. In my mind the main problem with Matrix is metadata. Any of the federated servers your communication travels through has it - who, with whom, when.

Regarding Signal limitations and conversely P2P messengers needing both ends to be online simultaneously: Session addresses that. While not as well-rounded for normies, it's already easy enough to use and has most of the quality of life details that Signal does.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
FLOSS.social

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).