Metafilter on Freenet? October 17, 2013 7:13 AM   Subscribe

So, what with all the stuff about privacy and whatnot, I've been interested in alternative ways to internet. I've been investigating Freenet, and in particular, the Freenet Message System. It seems like a really good plan to me, full of all sorts of high tech goodness. The only trouble is that the actual content that's there is very disappointing. I entreat a bunch of Metafilter people to join Freenet and start an fms forum called "metafilter" where we post cool links that aren't quite cool enough to go on the real metafilter, and then discuss them.

In addition to privacy and anonymity, one of the things I like about freenet is that it changes the economy of publishing in a way that people think the internet has, but in which the internet actually has not.

Throughout all of history, if someone wants to publish something and reach a vast audience, they have to pay for it. Then there's the question of how to get reimbursed. Nowadays, the answer is ads, which I hate, so I put adblock on. Then people are like "how will these websites get paid?"

With freenet, the publisher doesn't have to pay to publish. The readers do -- only insofar as they must contribute bandwidth and disk space. So the better ideas get published far and wide, not the ideas that can draw the most money.

Anyway, I hope to see people on the "metafilter" forum on fms.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon to MetaFilter-Related at 7:13 AM (55 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

As someone who is pretty new to this idea, like i just heard of it here, can you explain to me what would need to happen to get this going or point me to a place where I could get more information or find this location of which you speak?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:17 AM on October 17, 2013


So... we create... another Metafilter... elsewhere... that people don't know about? That wouldn't generate revenue to keep this site alive? I may be missing something, but... you are not selling me on this idea.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:19 AM on October 17, 2013 [11 favorites]


Sorry, I dumped stuff out of my brain instead of thinking about what other people know and need to know.

Freenet is an anonymous peer-to-peer internet project. Each person donates a portion of their hard drive space and bandwidth, and the software forms a peer-to-peer network. Bits of data are stored throughout the network, on various people's computers. Everything is protected cryptographically, and the theory is that this will be anonymous and censorship-resistant.

Anonymous because traffic between nodes is encrypted, and also onion-routed in the manner of tor. So it's impossible to tell who is requesting what data.

Censorship resistant because the data is stored redundantly in many different places. The only way to delete things off of freenet is if nobody requests it long enough that it falls out of people's caches.

It's essentially a distributed hash table, on which different applications can be implemented. One of those applications is the "Freenet Message System", a bulletin board system much like Usenet.

Another application is that people store html and such on there, to put websites on freenet. Except they're websites that are anonymous and cannot be deleted.

To participate in the network, you download the java-based program and run it. It'll start up a little proxy on your computer that you can use to browse the freenet websites. Run the fms software and it'll start up an nntp server you can use to browse the forums.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:31 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I guess I don't necessarily say that we should recreate metafilter. I just want freenet to have more interesting stuff on there, so I'm hoping to convince interesting and smart people to get on those message boards and talk about interesting stuff.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:32 AM on October 17, 2013


Sounds like you want a "Best of the Freenet".
posted by charred husk at 8:29 AM on October 17, 2013 [6 favorites]


Hmm. there doesn't seem to currently be any easy way to view Freenet via a mobile device (tablet/smartphone etc) and I M gonna go out onna limband say that thawill dissuadea lpt of mefites from diving in.

It's definately a major consideration for me as I do most of my 'net consumption via a tablet.

Cool idea though, and I hope it gains some traction, and remains civil and doesn't descend into the creeptastic depths that anonymous communities sometimes can devolve to.
posted by Faintdreams at 8:35 AM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Honestly, the fact that Freenet runs on Java is one of my biggest concerns about it. The other issue is that by having a "parallel" space in FMS, I'm sacrificing my anonymity in that service by honestly engaging as myself in metafilter FMS conversations. A sock puppet is practically required for engaging in a metafilter forum on FMS, not to mention the issues that come through de-anonymization based on text samples (and given the nature of mefi, you have a fantastic corpus as a source of truth).

In short, I don't think you've really thought through the operational security components of anonymous publishing.

I briefly toyed with Freenet a number of years ago when this onion routing thing was brand new and the issue was still the volume of good content (and the speed, of course). A whole lot of conspiracy theorists and plenty of people not-so-subtly inquiring about where to find exploitative images of children.
posted by bfranklin at 8:35 AM on October 17, 2013


Java?

Not really that secure overall then?
posted by edgeways at 8:38 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Who do I PayPal my 5 bucks to?
posted by blue_beetle at 8:38 AM on October 17, 2013


Well, there's two issues for me:

1) I can't use services like this at work, or on my tablet, which is where I tend to Metafilter when it's quiet.
2) I'm intrigued by things like TOR (I hadn't heard of Freenet until now but presume it is similar) but also, I feel like I'd be three clicks away from finding child porn, which puts me off investigating it.

I don't personally worry about internet privacy, though - I started using the web prior to Facebook and other services where one is encouraged to put one's real name against what they say, and I like the idea we can all be usernames too.
posted by mippy at 8:39 AM on October 17, 2013


Bitcoin, shurley?
posted by mippy at 8:40 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Not really that secure overall then?

While Java being used is an issue for the environment you run Freenet in, that's a threat that can be mitigated. You just run it in a VM that can only talk to Freenet and drops all other traffic. Honestly, you should be doing this type of sandboxing with anything that you are using to maintain anonymity.
posted by bfranklin at 8:42 AM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


"Each person donates a portion of their hard drive space and bandwidth"

I don't have hard drive space or bandwidth.
posted by Eideteker at 10:38 AM on October 17, 2013


This sounds terrible.
posted by dhammond at 11:14 AM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]


Nope, no way. Not when the freenet developer's position on child porn being stored on my pc is "if you were a real believer in Free Speech you wouldn't mind".
posted by Sternmeyer at 11:43 AM on October 17, 2013 [25 favorites]


I'm intrigued by things like TOR (I hadn't heard of Freenet until now but presume it is similar) but also, I feel like I'd be three clicks away from finding child porn, which puts me off investigating it.

Just to be clear, Tor does not work that way. Tor does not change what sites are visible to you; as far as usage, the only obvious impact of Tor is that it makes the internet slower.

It changes the IP address that your requests appear to come from, and can give you a new apparent IP address at will. Dissidents in oppressive regimes (and child pornographers and people getting around IP-based bans) need that sort of thing. You (probably) don't.
posted by Jpfed at 11:49 AM on October 17, 2013


Just to be clear, Tor does not work that way. Tor does not change what sites are visible to you; as far as usage, the only obvious impact of Tor is that it makes the internet slower.

Unless you start browsing the so-called deep web on .onion sites. You're still unlikely to unwittingly stumble upon child porn, but you certainly run closer to it than you would on the web at large, and folks are much more comfortable being openly creepy.
posted by bfranklin at 12:29 PM on October 17, 2013


I am big on privacy and considering getting more into that world, in light of all the recent revelations by Snowden et al. Not so much for myself, but I feel the world needs these services.

I think Tor is a great idea, though as recent studies have shown it is certainly not NSA-proof, especially when used repeatedly.

As far as this freenet thing, physically having the data on my computer in my house seems kind of anathema to the whole idea, because my computer can be physically seized under any number of flimsy pretenses, and I can be charged with "possessing" or "abetting" anything that is on my computer or has been on my computer or maybe even passed through my computer on the way to someone else. I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about that but I don't think I am.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:17 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


folks are much more comfortable being openly creepy.

But who are these "folks?" You type in "google.com" or "metafilter.com" the exact same way you always do, you're just routed differently. Tor doesn't magically summon creepy "folks" to crawl all over your favorite sites like those like animated dancing girls that used to walk out of the lower-left corner.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:18 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


Tor doesn't magically summon creepy "folks" to crawl all over your favorite sites like those like animated dancing girls that used to walk out of the lower-left corner.

Which is why that paragraph you quoted part of started with "Unless you start browsing the so-called deep web on .onion sites.
posted by shelleycat at 1:38 PM on October 17, 2013 [5 favorites]


Have you checked out MetaChat? It's not encrypted or distributed, but it's otherwise exactly what you're talking about getting going on Freenet.

I understand you're trying to get more good content on Usenet, but because of the various barriers discussed above, something much bigger than fun chat is going to have to get people there. Like Bill Watterson restarting Calvin and Hobbes and only posting it there or something.

Incidentally, wouldn't Freenet just take up more of everyone's HD as it got bigger and bigger since nothing expires?
posted by ignignokt at 2:04 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


Everything's devolving back into thin clients and Usenet, just with encryption.
posted by mrbill at 2:36 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wonder what percentage of Tor and Freenet nodes are NSA/FBI honeypots? If the majority of the nodes in an onion-type routing system are controlled by them, wouldn't it be easy for them to guess who you are by seeing who they are connecting to whom and timing those connections?

Besides that problem (that internet privacy is dubious at best), another major problem, as your question clearly illustrates, is that most people don't care about it and many of the ones who do are creepy as hell. It's hard to find good content in such an environment.

Unless your idea of "good content" is very different from mine.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:43 PM on October 17, 2013


" The other issue is that by having a "parallel" space in FMS, I'm sacrificing my anonymity in that service by honestly engaging as myself in metafilter FMS conversations. A sock puppet is practically required for engaging in a metafilter forum on FMS, not to mention the issues that come through de-anonymization based on text samples (and given the nature of mefi, you have a fantastic corpus as a source of truth)."

… but I thought the idea wasn't necessarily to have to be anonymous on Freenet, but rather that by engaging with the platform in a legit way, it gives more cover to people who do have to be anonymous. Like, I wouldn't worry about being anonymous there generally because I'd be doing the same shit I always do (all my weird google searches are RESEARCH and intentional noise in the machine).
posted by klangklangston at 2:47 PM on October 17, 2013


but I thought the idea wasn't necessarily to have to be anonymous

The cloak of legitimacy is good protection against lawmakers, but I think it's a pretty dubious cloak against intelligence agencies.
posted by bfranklin at 4:42 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I am afraid of anything that's not supported by international megacorporations. It's probably full of hackers and pornographers, and that's not what I stand for.
posted by Nomyte at 4:50 PM on October 17, 2013


If the majority of the nodes in an onion-type routing system are controlled by them, wouldn't it be easy for them to guess who you are by seeing who they are connecting to whom and timing those connections?

Controlling the nodes isn't what you want. What you want is visibility on the network at ingress and egress from Tor. At that point, the math is pretty much unstoppable at deanonymizing you. The adversary needs to capture something like .05% of your packets at those locations.
posted by bfranklin at 5:17 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]


I tried FMS about three years ago and found it remarkably non user-friendly even by the standards of Freenet. Managing trust lists... it's coming back to me. Unbelievable. You rate how much you trust people not to be a spam-bot, or paedophile, or whatever. Then you also rate how much you trust them to accurately rate other people as not being a spam-bot or paedophile. But then there are, quite naturally for Freenet, loads of libertarians who don't care if someone's a child pornographer or not, and lazy or confused people who don't care or can't properly filter spam-bots, so your trust in someone to be the one thing cannot then transfer to trusting them to trust other people to be that thing.

I need a drink.
posted by topynate at 5:39 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


I used to like the Cleveland Freenet. But this isn't that.
posted by box at 6:16 PM on October 17, 2013 [3 favorites]


I have very little doubt that the intelligence agencies are running some (probably many) Tor exit nodes. But analyzing the traffic within Tor itself would be pretty hard, I think.

Also, I thought that traffic entering Tor could enter at any node on the network, so I don't think odds are good that an intelligence agency is running the node your first connection points to. Unless they're running a shitload of nodes.
posted by Jpfed at 7:43 PM on October 17, 2013


This sounds like you want a lower-quality Metafilter which is harder to get to. I, uh, don't get the appeal.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:25 PM on October 17, 2013 [7 favorites]


So neither private nor anonymous? I'll add this to my list of things to tell my parents NOT TO CLICK on the internet.
posted by 26.2 at 11:18 PM on October 17, 2013


Sternmeyer: "Nope, no way. Not when the freenet developer's position on child porn being stored on my pc is "if you were a real believer in Free Speech you wouldn't mind"."

klangklangston: "… but I thought the idea wasn't necessarily to have to be anonymous on Freenet, but rather that by engaging with the platform in a legit way, it gives more cover to people who do have to be anonymous."

I remember when Freenet was launched back in 2000. Huge buzz around it in certain circles. A distributed network that was a bit different, more secure and less risky than Napster's P2P. Ran the software for a while.

The download times were awful. Seriously terrible compared to Usenet. You couldn't throttle your bandwidth use. I had no control over what was being cached on my system. And it wasn't fully indexed by design, so finding what you wanted tended to be difficult.

But what made me walk away and delete the software was the realization that I could be unknowingly storing and providing child porn to others. The software made it apparent that was just a click away and if labels / file names were to be believed, at least some of it was exploitative videos or pictures of very young children. Seriously disturbing, disgusting shit. Again, I had no control over what was being cached on my system. It wasn't like Limewire or BitTorrent, where you only seed what you download.

klang, I believe in supporting people who have to be anonymous for political reasons. That's valuable and important. Say if they live in an oppressive country and are trying to communicate with the outside world. I saw little to none of that on Freenet a decade ago. It was mostly porn, music and warez. Perhaps that's changed in the interim. But why the hell should we help provide anonymous cover to pedophiles?

I'm sure your heart's in the right place, Galaxor Nebulon. But no way.
posted by zarq at 11:42 PM on October 17, 2013 [4 favorites]


"klang, I believe in supporting people who have to be anonymous for political reasons. That's valuable and important. Say if they live in an oppressive country and are trying to communicate with the outside world. I saw little to none of that on Freenet a decade ago. It was mostly porn, music and warez. Perhaps that's changed in the interim. But why the hell should we help provide anonymous cover to pedophiles?"

I'm not gonna run it any time soon, but the devil's advocate reply is that you should because it's impossible to design a system that is safe for people who need real protection from authorities without also making it a haven for music, porn and warez.
posted by klangklangston at 12:01 AM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Freenet is an anonymous peer-to-peer internet project

Great. I'll take an eight ball of coke and a Glock 17, thanks.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:23 AM on October 18, 2013


klangklangston: " I'm not gonna run it any time soon, but the devil's advocate reply is that you should because it's impossible to design a system that is safe for people who need real protection from authorities without also making it a haven for music, porn and warez."

True. I guess I draw the line at this service.
posted by zarq at 6:44 AM on October 18, 2013



Have you checked out MetaChat? It's not encrypted or distributed, but it's otherwise exactly what you're talking about getting going on Freenet.

Well, MetaChat is rife with kitty porn, you know. Bunny porn, too.
posted by y2karl at 6:47 AM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


Isn't "eight ball of coke" redundant?
posted by SpiffyRob at 7:19 AM on October 18, 2013


Nah, it could be an eighth of some other drug, coke is just the standard eight ball.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:01 AM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


The More You Know♒★
posted by SpiffyRob at 10:25 AM on October 18, 2013 [8 favorites]


Librarians: they actually know far more about many subjects than I think you can imagine.
posted by filthy light thief at 12:27 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


In addition to eighth-ounces, 'eight ball' can also refer to a 40-ounce bottle of Olde English 800 malt liquor.
posted by box at 1:25 PM on October 18, 2013


It bothers me that child porn has become the boogeyman of any anonymous, uncensored network. It's an emotionally charged subject that, once mentioned, makes it hard to have rational discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the network. As klangklangston said, any system that is safe for people with legitimate need for anonymity and uncensored speech must also be safe for people who want to use it for immoral reasons. So being outraged about child porn here is irrational and counterproductive, in my opinion.

It's an inherent property of the system that it can be used for both good and evil, because it must not make any distinction between the two.
posted by floomp at 3:44 PM on October 18, 2013 [2 favorites]


Then color me irrational and counterproductive, because my totally outraged by child porn. I wouldn't participate in something that made me a distributor of it.

I'm unswayed by the evil for the greater good argument.
posted by 26.2 at 4:47 PM on October 18, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's an emotionally charged subject that, once mentioned, makes it hard to have rational discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the network.

Except no one is saying that the network doesn't have merits and no one is calling for it to be outlawed. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Freenet should be shut down. People are just saying they don't want to have anything to do with it because of those issues. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

You can't be an activist for everything. You need to pick and choose and make value judgments as to which causes get your support. Freenet has a lot of things not in its favor -- you can be a distributor of content you fundamentally oppose, it's ridiculously slow, and the default opennet model it runs under can apparently be deanonymized for a couple thousand dollars worth of time on the Amazon cloud.
posted by bfranklin at 4:57 PM on October 18, 2013 [4 favorites]


floomp: "It bothers me that child porn has become the boogeyman of any anonymous, uncensored network. It's an emotionally charged subject that, once mentioned, makes it hard to have rational discussion of the merits and drawbacks of the network.

I'm rational, thanks. I'm saying "there is a significant possibility that my computer might be used to store child porn" as an unacceptable drawback to me. I would not support a system that allowed it.

Further, I thought it worth noting aloud in this forum. Perhaps other mefites are not aware that such a possibility exists. That by running Freenet they might inadvertently host child pornography and other kinds of content that are not only illegal in their countries of residence, but may also be anathema to them personally. While I suspect that many of us wouldn't give a shit about potentially violating software or literary / entertainment copyright, some might actually care quite deeply about giving cover to pedophiles and disseminating child porn. The advantages of running Freenet don't outweigh that concern to me. Other people are free to feel differently.

As klangklangston said, any system that is safe for people with legitimate need for anonymity and uncensored speech must also be safe for people who want to use it for immoral reasons.

For now. Maybe one day a similar system could be designed that filters out content while guaranteeing anonymity. Guaranteeing anonymity and filtering content are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

So being outraged about child porn here is irrational and counterproductive, in my opinion.

It seems a little strange to advocate an open discussion of Freenet's merits and drawbacks while simultaneously deprecating (as completely irrational or unworthy of discussion) what some might perceive as a serious drawback.

It's an inherent property of the system that it can be used for both good and evil, because it must not make any distinction between the two."

In this case, since the software would be running on my hardware, I'm comfortable making a determination as to whether such a distinction is acceptable to me or not. And explaining why.
posted by zarq at 7:53 PM on October 18, 2013 [3 favorites]


Nah, it could be an eighth of some other drug, coke is just the standard eight ball.

I dunno, for an eighth of anything else I've always just heard "eighth."

Also the word eighth has now lost all meaning. Eighth. Eighththgh. Eighghphthbhghth.
posted by Now there are two. There are two _______. at 9:29 PM on October 18, 2013


There wouldn't be any moderators on the Freenet site. Dealbreaker!
posted by oceanjesse at 11:35 PM on October 18, 2013


What sort of legal problems could come from having Freenet content on your hard drive?

I think that's an important thing to know before installing it.
posted by yohko at 11:37 PM on October 18, 2013


I believe an eight ball can also be that "Ask again later" thing.
posted by blueberry at 1:40 AM on October 19, 2013


> it's impossible to design a system that is safe for people who need real protection from authorities without also making it a haven for music, porn and warez.

Severely limiting each node's bandwidth and/or limiting message size would help. Historically, very secret messages were sent via morse or cable at a very few characters per second. The less you send, the less you're likely to be found. Sure, it would knock out web browsing and providing content, but if you have a message you really need to communicate, you can get it across without being profligate with bandwidth.
posted by scruss at 4:20 AM on October 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


if you have a message you really need to communicate, you can get it across without being profligate with bandwidth.

Yeah, until that message requires a lot of bandwidth. There'a a big difference between "Let me send this email saying how this regime is oppressive" (low bandwidth) and "Here are a bunch of videos showing how the regime is oppressive" (high bandwidth).
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 4:08 AM on October 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


It seems a little strange to advocate an open discussion of Freenet's merits and drawbacks while simultaneously deprecating (as completely irrational or unworthy of discussion) what some might perceive as a serious drawback.

It's an unsolvable problem. If you can block certain content, you can block any content. If a pervo can abuse a system, it's gonna get abused. Nature of the beast.
posted by codswallop at 12:02 PM on October 20, 2013 [1 favorite]


Systems like Freenet and TOR are in a tough situation, because there are so many venues out there for people publishing legal, socially-acceptable content, that there's really little reason to use them other than for illegal content. And among the countries with sufficiently-widespread broadband to support (current) anonymized networks, laws protecting free speech cover most of what we'd want them to.

Most of the places in the world where you'd really need secured networks in the service of a Good Cause™, don't have the infrastructure to support these networks by themselves. And even if they do, the amount of network activity necessary to seem like an "average" participant is enough to flag you as someone who should be monitored (similarly to how using encryption can flag your data for retention by the NSA in the United States).

So Good Cause interests with a need for anonymity tend to be concentrated in parts of the world that can't support these networks. And in parts of the world that can support these networks, they are primarily useful for Bad Purposes™ (with child porn being the flagship example by a wide margin).

We're left with a dilemma:
  • If the "bad" parts of the world improve their free speech protections, then we won't need these networks as much.
  • But if the "good" parts of the world start seriously removing free speech protections, then we're all fucked because no one will be supporting these networks.
So which do you think is more likely?

Oh, except it's not that simple either. Because even people who (at the risk of being labeled paranoid) use these networks in "good" countries have a line. And that line is often the flagship: child porn. Few people will shed a tear if they incidentally support a few software pirates in the service of global free speech. But almost everyone will (rightly!) balk at giving haven to people who sexually abuse children.

In order for these networks to exists, they require a significant number of participants who pass three tests:
  1. They are technically savvy enough to know what the fuck we're talking about here.
  2. They are sufficiently interested in the principles of privacy and anonymity, that they would dedicate resources to it even though they live in a society that freely allows most reasonable speech.
  3. (the kicker) They are sufficiently devoted to those principles that they won't withdraw those resources even though they may aid and abet evils like child pornography.
That's a really harsh series of filters, whether you agree with them or not. And there is a critical mass here, beneath which these networks are not really that useful for good causes.

I don't know the solution. I can't say "just suck it up, and accept that helping freedom fighters means you'll also be helping child pornographers" because my brain refuses to tolerate that. I don't participate in TOR or Freenet at the moment, and that's a lot of the reason why.

But I also believe that the first world nations could start making deep cuts into free speech protections, and that we (as a species) might never be able to claw our way back out from the destructive consequences. And that's where it gets into very difficult questions about concretely protecting children in the present versus abstractly protecting humanity in the future.
posted by Riki tiki at 2:34 PM on October 20, 2013 [3 favorites]


As far as this freenet thing, physically having the data on my computer in my house seems kind of anathema to the whole idea, because my computer can be physically seized under any number of flimsy pretenses, and I can be charged with "possessing" or "abetting" anything that is on my computer or has been on my computer or maybe even passed through my computer on the way to someone else. I'd love to hear why I'm wrong about that but I don't think I am.

The data that's stored on your computer is encrypted. You don't have any way of knowing what's on there. Basically, you are given a chunk of a huge distributed database, without any idea what's there. And, assuming the crypto is actually any good, neither does anyone who comes in and grabs your hard drive.

At worst, you have plausible deniability as to what's in the Freenet cache.

Now, all that said, Freenet only works if there are a lot of people running the Freenet client who don't need to be using it. If the only people running the client and donating space/bandwidth to it are people who "need" the anonymity in some way (i.e. are under surveillance, or up to no good however defined) then the system fails: running the client quickly becomes a sort of self-justifying reason for having searched your computer.

So in order to be useful to people who actually need anonymity, you need a population of people who aren't doing anything interesting (as far as the NSA or others are concerned) and who don't really need anonymity to run the client. The risk involved in running the client is very, very low ... as long as lots of other uninteresting people also run the client. There's a sort of herd immunity thing going on.

This presents a problem, because (aside from porn, and as porn has become more accessible, only kiddy porn) nobody has really come up with a "killer app" for Freenet that convinces lots of people who don't need that degree of anonymity to run the client. So improving the quality of legal content on Freenet could have positive implications in terms of preserving the system for people who really need it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:51 PM on October 21, 2013


« Older Problems with drug hysteria   |   Freindship is Magic Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments