this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
83 points (83.2% liked)
Fediverse
28343 readers
471 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also it's worth mentioning the "how to distribute content among peers" problem has mostly been solved and has for over a decade, just that nobody has built out the UX for it for a YouTube clone. Torrents exist, #freenet and #hyphanet exist, #ipfs exists, these are all excellent platforms for storing and distributing content without relying on expensive, centralized hosting. Instead, users share the burden of hosting. There's a whole category of software that solves this problem in different ways (P2P). Unfortunately, every new generation of developers seems to want to re-invent the wheel instead of using time-tested tech that already exists but just needs a UX refresh or maybe some protocol improvements.
If you have a tube site and it says "to skip ads, install IPFS", everybody would be using IPFS.
I think part of the problem is that many of the p2p tech are caught in a tradeoff between giving hosts control of what they host (and therefore there is content that gets lost), and ensuring content availability (risking alienating hosts).
No way would I participate in a p2p network where I don't have full control over what I host, for the same reason I won't use p2p VPNs nor will I host a TOR exit node.
But then who is going to host the unpopular content?
Each network has its own way of addressing this with pros and cons. Personally, idc, I don't mind being a "router" in exchange for other computers "routing" to me. I don't mind the idea of sharing my internet connection via wifi with my neighborhood, it should be a resource for all.
The cost of having open communication networks or free speech or privacy or any liberties is that people may use those liberties to do bad things, but I'd rather live in a world where we have liberties that sometimes get abused than in a world without liberties where those who control things get basically unlimited abuse of the same liberties we are not afforded.
The problem is we're not there yet.
There are no protections for me if I unknowingly let some stranger use me as a host or router for CP or some pedo shit. It's not a risk I'm willing to take. There need to be legal protections in place, like there are for ISPs.
I'm ok with living in a world where liberties are sometimes abused, but I'm not ok with a world where innocents get punished for the actions of strangers.
There are, at least in the US. That's why running a Tor node is legal and so is a coffee-shop sharing their wifi to customers. They are not legally liable for actions of users, they are just routers.
I'm not familiar with those protections, but I'm not confident in them actually holding up in court considering the technical sophistication of the network compared to the technical competence of the courts.
But it's good to know that there are at least protections in theory.
Pretty well established case law at this point. If it weren't, you'd see Tor relay operators, small ISPs, etc being hauled into court constantly.