PICCCCMMMAANNNNN!
PICCCCMMMAANNNNN!
How would one decide their subscriber list if they do not already receive that user's content?
How would one decide their subscriber list if they do not already receive that user's content?
When you start out, you can receive content from anyone who publishes publicly (ie. publish to anyone, even if they aren't in the publishers trust list).
Over time, you mark users as trusted or not trusted. Content from untrusted users will be filtered out. Users you trust will also have a trust list of their own. If you trust someone, you will begin to trust the users w/good reputation on their trust list.
You can, of course, deicde if you want to only send/receive content from people you already trust, or not.
When you start out, you can receive content from anyone who publishes publicly (ie. publish to anyone, even if they aren't in the publishers trust list).
Over time, you mark users as trusted or not trusted. Content from untrusted users will be filtered out. Users you trust will also have a trust list of their own. If you trust someone, you will begin to trust the users w/good reputation on their trust list.
You can, of course, deicde if you want to only send/receive content from people you already trust, or not.
Starts as a trust all and slowly/instantly migrates to a web of trust?
Let's say I trust everyone and see your content. I mark you as trusted. Does that then mean I only see content based on your web of trust? And from that point forward I only trust a subset of whomever I first trust, and by extension their web of trust?
Any idea of the information bubble or echo chambers this might create?
Honestly not trying to nit pick. Just trying to understand how that would pragmatically function. In a security context where web of trust exists, it in of itself is not a disqualifying attribute. It simply lets them know the key is not trusted. But ultimately the user still makes the decryption or authentication call. Meaning it's still observed.
But here, it acts as a filter. Which I assume means it's excluding other's content based strictly upon the established web of trust?
Any practical implementations? How do they deal with these types of issues? Trust thresholds?
Starts as a trust all and slowly/instantly migrates to a web of trust?
Let's say I trust everyone and see your content. I mark you as trusted. Does that then mean I only see content based on your web of trust? And from that point forward I only trust a subset of whomever I first trust, and by extension their web of trust?
Any idea of the information bubble or echo chambers this might create?
Honestly not trying to nit pick. Just trying to understand how that would pragmatically function. In a security context where web of trust exists, it in of itself is not a disqualifying attribute. It simply lets them know the key is not trusted. But ultimately the user still makes the decryption or authentication call. Meaning it's still observed.
But here, it acts as a filter. Which I assume means it's excluding other's content based strictly upon the established web of trust?
Any practical implementations? How do they deal with these types of issues? Trust thresholds?
A great deal of work has been done on this subject: http://www.draketo.de/english/freenet/friendly-communication-with-anonymity
A great deal of work has been done on this subject: http://www.draketo.de/english/freenet/friendly-communication-with-anonymity
How can I block robocallers if I don't allow all of them to spam my phone 24/7?
Imagine being this naive
>How can I block robocallers if I don't allow all of them to spam my phone 24/7?
Imagine being this naive
Why is it everything you provide is retarded? That's rhetorical.
The question remains valid. It's a chicken and egg question. Your analogy isn't even on the same page.
Why is it everything you provide is retarded? That's rhetorical.
The question remains valid. It's a chicken and egg question. Your analogy isn't even on the same page.
Incorrect. Allowing yourself to be bombarded by messages from every lunatic and idiot in the world is foolish. Only a shill who wants to flood your mind with what he wants you to see or an absolute naive fool thinks this way.
Incorrect. Allowing yourself to be bombarded by messages from every lunatic and idiot in the world is foolish. Only a shill who wants to flood your mind with what he wants you to see or an absolute naive fool thinks this way.
but the future of the internet is decentralized
Is it really?
What makes you so sure that is the future of the internet?
Things are heading in the exact opposite direction and the "Web-of-Trust" stuff is literally written by the people into Codes of Conduct and radical leftists views.
Do you really think this will not lead to GREATER censorship by some pure fucking magic?
>but the future of the internet is decentralized
Is it really?
What makes you so sure that is the future of the internet?
Things are heading in the exact opposite direction and the "Web-of-Trust" stuff is literally written by the people into Codes of Conduct and radical leftists views.
Do you really think this will not lead to GREATER censorship by some pure fucking magic?
You don't seem to understand how WoT and concepts like it operate. You get to make the choice for yourself what you see. Of course it's not perfect.
And yes, I believe the future of the internet is decentralized. Big tech is moving to more centralized solutions, of course. But the exponential increase in computing resource and the inverse relationship to cost has lead to a massive amount of computing resources that are just "lying around". As this excess resource supply increases, it improves the feasibility of decentralized tech.
It's not just a matter of resisting censorship. You can run decentralized applications today, like a marketplace, social media, video sharing, etc. When everyone contributes their own computing power to the application, you (the dev) can run huge applications on a near $0 budget. In addition, it makes it very hard for some entity (like the government) to come in and regulate how the application operates.
It's too useful a technology to just sit in the background forever.
You don't seem to understand how WoT and concepts like it operate. You get to make the choice for yourself what you see. Of course it's not perfect.
And yes, I believe the future of the internet is decentralized. Big tech is moving to more centralized solutions, of course. But the exponential increase in computing resource and the inverse relationship to cost has lead to a massive amount of computing resources that are just "lying around". As this excess resource supply increases, it improves the feasibility of decentralized tech.
It's not just a matter of resisting censorship. You can run decentralized applications today, like a marketplace, social media, video sharing, etc. When everyone contributes their own computing power to the application, you (the dev) can run huge applications on a near $0 budget. In addition, it makes it very hard for some entity (like the government) to come in and regulate how the application operates.
It's too useful a technology to just sit in the background forever.
Imagine being able to look at all sides of a dice and ignoring the ones you don't care about / resonate with, goy
Imagine being able to look at all sides of a dice and ignoring the ones you don't care about / resonate with, goy
lol, jews wouldn't encourage you to look at all sides of the dice.
They prefer to make a 2 sided die, both sides exactly the same, save for the color, and give you that.
lol, jews wouldn't encourage you to look at all sides of the dice.
They prefer to make a 2 sided die, both sides exactly the same, save for the color, and give you that.
but the future of the internet is decentralized
Only in some fictional universe.
> but the future of the internet is decentralized
Only in some fictional universe.
(post is archived)