Some time ago, certain people used Freenet to transfer enormous amounts of data (for such a small network) in the open, and most users did not notice, and it rarely got mentioned (if at all). So when people state they have estimates of network usage, I get really skeptical.
And people often make wrong assumptions.
That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
The whole point of projects like freenet is to let people communicate data between each other without censorship and without being identified, no matter what that data is. If you disagree with that principle then I believe that freenet is probably not for you.
> That does not really do much to convince me running it is a good thing, you know?
Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
Way not to get the point.
Are you saying the overwhelming majority of users on some network GP manages are using it to do "naughty things"? Yes, then of course GP should shut it down. That's why the question in this sub-thread is "Is this used for other stuff too, or in practice almost exclusively for morally repugnant stuff that I don't want to support?".
If the question can't be answered, that's one thing; then people will have to base their moral judgment of whether to participate or not upon their own more or less educated guess. But most of the proponents here seem not to (want to) even understand the question, and in reply gibber about anything and everything except what was asked. Which makes not only themselves but the very thing they seem to think they're defending come off in a real shitty light.
Way to score an own goal.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> Yes, then of course GP should shut it down
I would say that this is debatable.
Yeah, well, sorry, but I really couldn't see much of a stronger interpretation.
I mean, hey, was my take all that much more of "a weaker one that's easier to criticize" than:
>>> Make sure to block TLS connections on every network that you manage. You don't know what naughty things your users might be doing after all. You would not want to help a criminal, would you?
? I'd say no.
I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.
> but you are fine with
Yes, I explained why I said it in the post that you are replying to. My biggest mistake was using sarcasm to convey the message I guess.
Anyway, it would be nice if you focused on the essence of my post instead of the weak presentation of my last point.
> I did not say that. I am sure that CRConrad is acting in good faith.
Oh yeah? Quoting the admonition to "Assume good faith" at me in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28591865 certainly at least strongly implies the opposite.
But it doesn't need to be so dramatic. Like most of the people on this site, you probably use more or less cheap broadband or mobile internet at home. The reason it's much cheaper than a dedicated line to your location is because a lot of people in your area want an internet connection, too (and they don't use it fully, or all at the same time, etc.), so there's a great deal of ISP infrastructure sharing. So you help your neighbor in having a cheap internet access, and your neighbor helps you.
What if one of your neighbors is a maniac who streams killing people, or a botnet owner, or a military drone operator working from home, or just a domestic abuser? Have you asked your provider to only join the “decent people” network? If not, you are actively helping bad people right now.
But they weren't asking about whether the network had some users doing "super-illegal" things. They asked if it was roughly all the users. So that analogy isn't even close to fitting.
One of the central ideas of Freenet (and some other projects) is that you don't know what exactly you transfer. Moreover, if you could discern “good content” from “bad content” in some general or specific fashion, you would instantly be forced to do so according to numerous laws.
If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that).
Participating in society inevitably helps some cold-blooded killers.
But I wouldn't deliberately help out a group made of cold-blooded killers.
So I think that moral makes sense. Which part would you disagree with?
> If we followed that path, all bittorrent clients would get outlawed long ago (we all know certain businesses have always wanted that).
Well, if I was strongly anti-piracy I sure wouldn't run a bittorrent client that helps relay anonymous chunks between other users. I don't think we need to involve legality in this discussion, that just complicates things.
Maybe you just want to say that all Freenet users are pedophiles. Maybe you want to think that all Freenet users are pedophiles to not think about other things. Maybe you want to state that “normal person” has no reason to use (and won't ever have to consider using) anything like it. It's your choice, thank you very much.
Uh, no.
I just think it sometimes matters what the percent is. And I'm curious what the percent is.
I even ran a pretty stable freenet node at one point, thank you very much.
And you didn't really explain where your moral reasoning differs from mine. I'm not discussing what should be legal...
We can make that calculating approach universal. What percent of your neighbors is not good enough in general? What percent of all people on Earth? If we start close inspections, we will find that not a lot of people pass the test… and the rest can inevitably be discarded and excluded. Let's not forget about yourself, what's your percentage? Are you good enough to join other Freenet users? That's the opposite side of original question.
Moral choice can not be calculated, it turns into something else when one does it.
And I think "there's some kind of fuzzy threshold where you should stop assisting someone" is a much better plan than "never assist anyone" or "always assist anyone, even hitler".
(If you think that's a strawman, you need to explain how the way you do things doesn't fit any of those three options.)
(And I'm not talking about hurting someone, or depriving them of basic human rights. Just not going out of my way to help them do what they want.)
OK, so then you're saying that unless you can prove for sure that NO criminal -- "really bad", actually morally repugnant "criminal" -- activity benefits from Freenet, one shouldn't run it. Great, thanks for the clarification.
What lawyers don't do is assist their clients in ongoing breaking of the law.
You wrote the original message that it's easy to know if nodes' users are decent people. I'm saying it's not easy, with an example.
But big groups of people are much easier to judge when you only care about things like the average, and my own choices don't have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.