Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

482

TL;DR: In decentralized applications (of which Poal is not, but the future of the internet is decentralized) each individual using the application must decide, for themselves, who they want to receive content from, and who not to. This is censorship resistant because there isn't a central arbiter who is deciding what you can and cannot see; everyone has to make that choice on their own.

ie, if you don't like Poal giving you the ability to block faggots, then you're gonna have a hard time adjusting to the decentralized web.

edit: faggot

TL;DR: In decentralized applications (of which Poal is not, but the future of the internet is decentralized) each individual using the application must decide, *for themselves*, who they want to receive content from, and who not to. This is censorship resistant because there isn't a central arbiter who is deciding what you can and cannot see; everyone has to make that choice on their own. ie, if you don't like Poal giving you the ability to block faggots, then you're gonna have a hard time adjusting to the decentralized web. edit: faggot

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (23).
[–] • 1 pt

How would one decide their subscriber list if they do not already receive that user's content?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

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.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

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?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

A great deal of work has been done on this subject: http://www.draketo.de/english/freenet/friendly-communication-with-anonymity

[–] [deleted] • -1 pt

How can I block robocallers if I don't allow all of them to spam my phone 24/7?

Imagine being this naive

[–] • 1 pt

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.

[–] [deleted] • -1 pt

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.