Book burning in the digital age

[GreyGeek]

[GreyGeek]

Dave Cullen thinks that BlockChain and P2P protocols like Ethereum and IPFS will save Internet free speech:

I don't think so, since every Internet user has to sign up with an ISP that can and usually is controlled by the government. P2P packet traffic can be identified and blocked at the ISP level, or at the trunk level.

[GreyGeek]

Interesting use of IPFS to preserve access to Wikipedia despite censorship.
https://ipfs.io/blog/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/

[woodsmoke]

One question which is not addressed is just PRECISELY HOW LARGE A HARD DRIVE IS NEEDED to run...just the snapshot. In other words no "interaction" with the data only viewing it.

A second, and just as important, question is how much bandwidth would be "nominally" used because the person hosting it will quite probably have to pay a surcharge to her or his internet service provider if the calls on the data are "significantly" higher than would be normal for the person's hard drive.

And, that leads the the third thing, it is possible that the Internet Service Provider might consider this to be a "business" and require the person to pay for a business access.

all those pesky monetary things kind of get lost in all this high falutin' stuff.

woodalwayrainingonparadessmoke

[GreyGeek]

The IPFS copy of the Turkish Wikipedia was 10Gb total. Also, it is static. They are working on creating a editable version.

But, IPFS has other MAJOR problems, in that P2P is not truly P2P. Those pesky ISPs get in the way.

[GreyGeek]

Another major problem of IPFS is their "Code of Conduct", which included the following phrase:

...
Harassment includes, but is not limited to: harmful or prejudicial verbal or written comments related to gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, age, physical appearance, body size, race, or similar personal characteristics; inappropriate use of nudity, sexual images, and/or sexually explicit language in public spaces; threats of physical or non- physical harm; deliberate intimidation, stalking or following; harassing photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention.
...

All content published to public IPFS infrastructure is hosted at the sole discretion of the IPFS team.
Unacceptable behavior from any community member will not be tolerated.
Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behavior is expected to comply immediately.
If a community member engages in unacceptable behavior, the ipfs team may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including a temporary ban or permanent expulsion from the community without warning (and without refund in the case of a paid event or service).

In the case of the highlighted words, just WHOSE definition is applied to those words? And where are those definitions published? Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have similar codes of conduct and if you aren't a member of their political persuasion then your free speech rights don't exist on their medium.

By the way, just how is someone able to make "inappropriate physical contact" through a keyboard?

This code looks like it was copy & pasted from some other environment that doesn't actually apply to P2P networks, and doesn't make sense in a P2P environment. Just how is the IPFS going to police such an environment, and what gives them the right to do so, since IPFS is open sourced via the MIT license, which does not include moral clauses beyond intellectual property rights.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So, exactly how does the IPFS plan to enforce such a code if, for example, I point out to someone who claims to be a transgender women that every cell in his body contains XY chromosomes and that makes him a man regardless of how unstable his mental condition is? Is that "sexual harassment"? Linux and the Open Source community has already passed through a phase during which any claim of sexual harassment by a women against a man was considered as fact until the man proved his innocence, but the reverse was never the case.

[GreyGeek]

Another problem I have with IPFS is the way they present the difference between centralized, distributed and peer-to-peer networking:



The first, a centralized network, could be considered a single ISP and the customers connected to its server(s).
The second, a distributed network, could be considered as a backbone between IPS servers through which their various customers connect.
The third is IPFS's representation of their P2P network. However, it leaves out a missing component, thus distorting their reality: every peer in that network communicates to other peers through their respective ISP. Each ISP controls what passes through their servers and thus so does law enforcement and the government. Thus, the third diagram is more like the second. Also, the "P2P" traffic also passes through trunk lines and portals in and out of the country, which were major access points for interception and spying by our government on our citizens. Consider what happened five years ago when major ISPs began blocking bittorrent traffic, which is similar to the seeding done by IPFS. And, all IPFS hashes begin with "Qm", so they are easy to identify and block.

Real P2P access points are both client and server. There is no central server. There is no central router. Communication between one peer and another does not pass through commercial servers and routers, but other peers.


True P2P networks are meshes. Mesh networks are made by chaining routers together into a mini Wi-Fi network. Some routers have to be added as bridges to span gaps between two or more peers. Sometimes a can antenna is used to cover distances of 3 or more miles, as in the case of the BambooWifi in Philadelphia. It's been in operation for 5 years and at last count had about 150 peers in its mesh. Several of the peers also connect through an ISP and act as a source of "content" to other peers. If the ISP knew that they'd probably file charges against the peer doing the hijacking. Other "content" usually involves coordination of political actions, bake sales, etc...

Another problem with meshes is their slowness for packets having to travel from a peer at one end of the mesh to a peer at the other end of the mesh. In our current Internet traceroute reveals that a packet usually passes through a dozen or so servers before it arrives at its IP address destination, which could be anyplace in the world. If local mesh was five miles wide it would take 88 hops to for a packet to travel from one end of the mesh to the other.

IMO, neither ZeroNet nor IPFS are valid solutions to the problem of a secure and free Internet, nor will any "solution" that rides on the backbone of an ISP or the trunk connecting ISPs and DNS servers.

[woodsmoke]

maybe in "these cases" it is a situation of trying to get SOMETHING done on a shoestring and not really knowing what is really needed because of the shoestring finances.

Or not... lol

but good points GG.

woodsmoke

[Bings]

Youtube isn't removing their videos, it's just not paying for them. A company not paying you for a service it does not want does not constitute censorship and making out it is the equivalent of book burning is egregious but nothing less than I'd expect from the self entitled "content creators".

[GreyGeek]

Youtube isn't removing their videos, it's just not paying for them. A company not paying you for a service it does not want does not constitute censorship and making out it is the equivalent of book burning is egregious but nothing less than I'd expect from the self entitled "content creators".

You're impugning some content creators as being "self titled" is merely an insult to them and their work. Are you a Cornell University Law professor and legal scholar like William Jacobson? His EIGHT YEARS of videos he created and posted to his channel, Legal Insurrection, entitles him to be called a content creator:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12418/...-hank-berrien#
but those videos were deleted, along with his channel. Deleted without warning or notice and on the flimsiest of excuses, copy right violation submitted by an entity that didn't own the copy right. And, even if they did, the DMCA allows for fair use.
He is just one of dozens we know about out of hundreds we don't. It was only when he threatened legal action and YT editors learned of his status and profession that they relented and put his channel back up.

Google made a social contract with ALL content creators when it started YouTube, and used the mantra "First, do no evil". Then, gradually, it began to morph into a company that did and does evil. They are using Ad Sense denial and Restricted Mode as weapons to control the content of videos, and justifying their actions with vague phrases in their ToS. Facebook and Twitter are doing the same thing but folks posting on those social websites do not make money from their posts, even though Facebook and Twitter do.

And, YT has banned some Marxist channels as well, all of which, as listed by Reddit, had less than 30,000 subscribers, most less than 5K. But, they put them right back up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/c...by_subscriber/
But why aren't the big Marxist channels in that list? The ones with 200K t0 1M or more subscribers.

BTW, here is YT's new rules:
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/...-to-fight.html

[woodsmoke]

Add in to the mix that I think, personally, that Obama OUT OF SIGHT AND MIND in his office struck a deal with the social media providers to give under the table access to any and all users "in the case" of a terrorist attack.

The "recognition" software is able to "interpret" things like "how you stand" and your "body movements" so even if the terrorist did not put his face he can still be "determined".

AND speaking of "FACE".

I got into a big brawl with Facebook because I had two accounts one with a face pic and one without. My "non face" image was deemed unacceptable and they threatened to delete the account. So I uploaded a face. That of my uncle who passed away decades ago and which I morphed a little bit.

Anyone who thinks that the "social media" is out for doing anything other than monetizing YOU is a fool.

And...ya know what...I think that Obama was GLAD to strong arm the social media people IF they do have complete access because...welll a liberal elite is more than willing to use useful idiots...

just as the conservative elite is willing to use useful idiots.

the problem with all of this is that the ordinary folks get caught up in the machinations of people who are think that they are soooo much smarter than anyone else...

and that, of course, also includes the terrorist.

woodsmoke

[Bings]

You're impugning some content creators as being "self titled" is merely an insult to them and their work. Are you a Cornell University Law professor and legal scholar like William Jacobson? His EIGHT YEARS of videos he created and posted to his channel, Legal Insurrection, entitles him to be called a content creator:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12418/...-hank-berrien#
but those videos were deleted, along with his channel. Deleted without warning or notice and on the flimsiest of excuses, copy right violation submitted by an entity that didn't own the copy right. And, even if they did, the DMCA allows for fair use.
He is just one of dozens we know about out of hundreds we don't. It was only when he threatened legal action and YT editors learned of his status and profession that they relented and put his channel back up.

Google made a social contract with ALL content creators when it started YouTube, and used the mantra "First, do no evil". Then, gradually, it began to morph into a company that did and does evil. They are using Ad Sense denial and Restricted Mode as weapons to control the content of videos, and justifying their actions with vague phrases in their ToS. Facebook and Twitter are doing the same thing but folks posting on those social websites do not make money from their posts, even though Facebook and Twitter do.

VIDEO

Well, that's a completely different set of circumstances and I wouldn't argue for DMCA nonsense. Nor, do I think Google are anything but a bunch of arseholes. What I am saying, is that content creators are treating monetisation of their videos as a human right and comparing the removal of it to book burning and that is silly..

[GreyGeek]

Well, that's a completely different set of circumstances and I wouldn't argue for DMCA nonsense. Nor, do I think Google are anything but a bunch of arseholes. What I am saying, is that content creators are treating monetisation of their videos as a human right and comparing the removal of it to book burning and that is silly..

No, they are treating the demonetization of their videos as a violation of the contract they made with Google when Google solicited their content at the beginning. While Google is a private business and isn't required to follow the 1st or any other Amendment, as their treatment of their recently fired employee demonstrates, YT has become a huge social platform, a "public commons" if you will, no different from the town square, where people used to step up on a box and speak their opinion to anyone standing around the commons. As a public commons I believe that they have lost the right to ignore the 1st Amendment while they censor content the owners and management of Google/YT disagree with. In other words, they should be regulated as a public utility. Their content is NOT like the content of the news papers and TV News, which hires people who agree with the owner and those people present news in a manner the owners agree with, which has become so obvious with the MNM for the last two years or more. YT's ownership and management is NOT hiring reporters and experts to create content like newspapers and TV does. They made an agreement with Joe and Sally Sixpack that they could post their videos on YT. When Joe and Sally saw that YT was making money off of their videos they asked for a share of the income, and YT agreed. Only in the last few years have they begun using the ad money as force for compliance to their POV, or a hammer to smash those who refused to comply.

[vinnywright]

I don't know or care about "monetisation" of videos or words ,,,BUT since a lot of people now days get their information from the web and use the web to express their ideas and convey information instead of the written word (on paper , books , news print ,ect ,ect.) then removal of that typed word or spoken video just because of content ,,,,,vary well could be analogized as book burning in the digital age ,,,and at the vary least censorship

VINNY

[woodsmoke]

Zukerberg shouted loudly in protest when CharlieEbdo was bombed after the mocking of Allah

...I myself went to our "busy intersection" the next day and held a sign JesuisCharlie for a few hours.

FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. FREEDOM OF ART ( the front cover)...was LOUDLY shouted by Zuck.

hmmmm but...apparently Zuck doesn't like other people doing to him what he approved of doing against a religion...

dunno...the old woodsmoker is looking for a word to describe this...something about... doing one thing and saying another...what IS that word...begins with an "H"...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-stunt-1029102

woodsmoke