Lemmy isn’t exactly changing a great deal. It’s not replacing industry or agriculture which is what really needs replacing. If they wanted to shut down lemmy or make it difficult they probably could. They clearly don’t care.
For me at least, it’s replacing my use of the social media industry. Nobody is immune to propaganda, so replacing platforms is an important early step.
Not to say the whole pipe is free yet; we still need decentralized DNS, mesh networks, etc.
I suspect that our existing manufacturing and agriculture hardware will be inherited by workers unions and cooperatives some time after we can talk about that freely.
we still need decentralized DNS, mesh networks, etc.
Imagine if we created a decentralized network that spanned to globe connecting all our little networks together. It should be based on protocols that are open source and standardized wherever possible and should be compatible with many different devices from different vendors. If we are lucky it could enable worldwide communication and even commerce. Since it is made of smaller networks working together we should call it the Inter-network, and the protocol, well maybe we should call it internetwork protocol. Since that’s a bit clunky maybe people will start calling it the internet, or net for short.
Oh wait all of this already exists.
The internet is literally the largest mesh network ever created. DNS system uses root servers and TLD servers spread all over the world, and each organization is responsible for hiring or building the DNS servers for their websites. Its already decentralized to the nth degree, the only thing is a lot of it is owned by corporations.
I was actually facepalming so hard when I read this reply. Maybe pickup a networking book next time before jumping to conclusions about how international infrastructure works.
There is a difference between mesh networking and major ISPs.
Well yes one’s a network technology the other is a type of businesses. The big ISPs form a mesh network together. What about the current internet core isn’t a mesh network?
What’s you criticism of the current DNS system? Afaik the root servers are run by a non-profit who also assigns names and IP addresses. Seems fine to me.
Instead of being verbose and sarcastic, we could discuss this in earnest.
You made extremely radical claims without explaining anything. What did you want me to say? I could have just said “the internet is already decentralized, read a book”, but that wouldn’t make my point nearly as well as to what an achievement of cooperation the internet actually is.
The current internet core operates on a hierarchical structure with multiple layers, such as backbone networks, ISPs, and interconnected routers. While it does have elements of decentralization, such as multiple routes for data transmission, the core architecture still relies on centralized points of control and management, especially in terms of routing and addressing.
DNS is a good example. You’re right in that ICANN are a nonprofit, which is better than if they were for-profit. But they still need to comply with legal orders, and those laws are purchased by for-profits. Piracy sites (like KickassTorrents and Megaupload) get their domains seized by the American Department of Justice. If we really start to organize, then the goverment will classify that as extremism.
Good alternative systems include Hyperborea and CJDNS if you’re curious, although those are by no means a complete picture. Most of the time what people disagree with is if this centralization is good, so I apologize if I skipped ahead.
Just because something is hierarchical doesn’t make it centralized. The backbone network at it’s core is a mesh network owned by many organizations. The other layers are also split between multiple countries, organizations, and physical hardware. There is no single point of failure here.
Even DNS isn’t really centralized. The servers are still spread across the world even if they are run by one organization. I don’t think this is actually a technology problem at all, but an organizational and political one. If the US can make ICANN do whatever then we need to put limits on the power of the US. Going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can be cajoled by world governments. Even if that didn’t happen national and ISP level blocks can be put in place like those in China and across the world. This is going to sound corny but the actual solution here must involve reform or revolution.
Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
They don’t go after lemmy. They go after the users. There are several ways, the easiest of which is to make using a federated network an implicit crime.
Like how downloading or talking too loudly about tor or tails puts you on a watch list.
They don’t even have to follow up on that more than a couple times for the chilling effect to drive people away from using it. Without a large enough user base, we’re spread too thin to affect change.
If the current system ever identifies federation as a threat, it’ll happen.
Literally everyone is on a “watch list” to the point that that term is now very dated.
I agree that them going after you on an ISP level is also a problem, for which we need more decentralized mesh networking as well. But in practice, sharing albums has also pissed off corporations for a long time and they’re still unable to stop that.
That’s why decentralized systems are important. We’re talking about changing things right now; how are they going to break down Lemmy?
Lemmy isn’t exactly changing a great deal. It’s not replacing industry or agriculture which is what really needs replacing. If they wanted to shut down lemmy or make it difficult they probably could. They clearly don’t care.
For me at least, it’s replacing my use of the social media industry. Nobody is immune to propaganda, so replacing platforms is an important early step.
Not to say the whole pipe is free yet; we still need decentralized DNS, mesh networks, etc.
I suspect that our existing manufacturing and agriculture hardware will be inherited by workers unions and cooperatives some time after we can talk about that freely.
Imagine if we created a decentralized network that spanned to globe connecting all our little networks together. It should be based on protocols that are open source and standardized wherever possible and should be compatible with many different devices from different vendors. If we are lucky it could enable worldwide communication and even commerce. Since it is made of smaller networks working together we should call it the Inter-network, and the protocol, well maybe we should call it internetwork protocol. Since that’s a bit clunky maybe people will start calling it the internet, or net for short.
Oh wait all of this already exists.
The internet is literally the largest mesh network ever created. DNS system uses root servers and TLD servers spread all over the world, and each organization is responsible for hiring or building the DNS servers for their websites. Its already decentralized to the nth degree, the only thing is a lot of it is owned by corporations.
I was actually facepalming so hard when I read this reply. Maybe pickup a networking book next time before jumping to conclusions about how international infrastructure works.
I have. There is a difference between mesh networking and major ISPs. Instead of being verbose and sarcastic, we could discuss this in earnest.
Well yes one’s a network technology the other is a type of businesses. The big ISPs form a mesh network together. What about the current internet core isn’t a mesh network?
What’s you criticism of the current DNS system? Afaik the root servers are run by a non-profit who also assigns names and IP addresses. Seems fine to me.
You made extremely radical claims without explaining anything. What did you want me to say? I could have just said “the internet is already decentralized, read a book”, but that wouldn’t make my point nearly as well as to what an achievement of cooperation the internet actually is.
The current internet core operates on a hierarchical structure with multiple layers, such as backbone networks, ISPs, and interconnected routers. While it does have elements of decentralization, such as multiple routes for data transmission, the core architecture still relies on centralized points of control and management, especially in terms of routing and addressing.
DNS is a good example. You’re right in that ICANN are a nonprofit, which is better than if they were for-profit. But they still need to comply with legal orders, and those laws are purchased by for-profits. Piracy sites (like KickassTorrents and Megaupload) get their domains seized by the American Department of Justice. If we really start to organize, then the goverment will classify that as extremism.
Good alternative systems include Hyperborea and CJDNS if you’re curious, although those are by no means a complete picture. Most of the time what people disagree with is if this centralization is good, so I apologize if I skipped ahead.
Just because something is hierarchical doesn’t make it centralized. The backbone network at it’s core is a mesh network owned by many organizations. The other layers are also split between multiple countries, organizations, and physical hardware. There is no single point of failure here.
Even DNS isn’t really centralized. The servers are still spread across the world even if they are run by one organization. I don’t think this is actually a technology problem at all, but an organizational and political one. If the US can make ICANN do whatever then we need to put limits on the power of the US. Going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can be cajoled by world governments. Even if that didn’t happen national and ISP level blocks can be put in place like those in China and across the world. This is going to sound corny but the actual solution here must involve reform or revolution.
Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
They don’t go after lemmy. They go after the users. There are several ways, the easiest of which is to make using a federated network an implicit crime.
Like how downloading or talking too loudly about tor or tails puts you on a watch list.
They don’t even have to follow up on that more than a couple times for the chilling effect to drive people away from using it. Without a large enough user base, we’re spread too thin to affect change.
If the current system ever identifies federation as a threat, it’ll happen.
Literally everyone is on a “watch list” to the point that that term is now very dated.
I agree that them going after you on an ISP level is also a problem, for which we need more decentralized mesh networking as well. But in practice, sharing albums has also pissed off corporations for a long time and they’re still unable to stop that.
that’s… not actually hard though. for a state level actor like Canada or amazon.
Why haven’t they broken down bittorrent?
that’s actually hard.
and I didn’t say they would. I said it wouldn’t be hard for them.
Why would they not do something that’s easy and beneficial to them?
because they don’t know or care, and there would be non-zero social cost, still larger than the benefit.