(untitled)

How doomed is the internet? >Every big site controls what you can say >Small sites must control what you say or they'll lose advertisers (given to them by massive corpo, google, btw) >Every small site must control what you say or they'll lose cloudflare protection and magically get DDOSsed the instant they lose the protection What can we do? Is there no real free speech? Even if I don't agree with stuff that gets said on sites that get 'shut down', I sure as soykaf don't want people who I disagree with getting deleted from the internet.

i2p, zeronet, tor We just have to hide and run

>>58971 >What can we do? How about Gopher (use Lynx) or Gemini (like Gopher but more modern)? https://gopher.zone/ https://gopher.floodgap.com/gopher/ >>58972 >i2p, zeronet, tor I wouldn't recommend zeronet (it can leak your IP with JS). Also, add GNUnet, FreeNet, Lokinet and Yggdrasil to the list. IRC, ipfs and amule/emule are also related (kind of).

>>58973 imo gopher/gemini's highest potential is to be another frontend to a pet blog. There is absolutely no real-world functionality to them. HTTP itself is not bad, the browsers are. By using HTML with CSS with optional server-side scripting (perl, python, php, c) removes the peril of executing remote code (HTML and CSS don't include functions or any of that, only JS and WebAssembly). If gopher/gemini has the potential to power up dynamic gopherholes / gemini capsules, then I'll buy into that. Until then, it's not worth the time.

>>58973 isn't lokinet just pure glowienet? The more money you have the more nodes you can own and thereby the more traffic you can analyze/catalog unsecured. Governments having unlimited pockets makes it prime for them, no?

Internet just has been turned into a transport layer for intranets such as Telegram or Matrix. As they give people means to gatekeep properly and requires no technical knowledge, people move there. All that is left is inertia, we're in the "app" world now.

>>58975 Yes lokinet is cyberhumped. The only real alternatives are TOR and I2P(d).

>>58975 >>58977 >Yes lokinet is cyberhumped. Sorry, I didn't know that. I heard about it just recently.

The internet was doomed from the start. Tor is the only darknet that has enough activity to be usable but then most sites are clearnet only and probably clownflared or owned by big corpos, and Tor is blocked everywhere on the clearnet and nobody uses it because pedophiles use it (they use clearnet too). The other darknets--I2P, Freenet, Gemini, etc.--suffer from low adoption and will never replace the clearnet. Your best option would be to just stop using the internet entirely and live in the woods, but you'll never be able to do that. I think we're just going to have to accept this and move on.

>>58979 imo i2p may have a smaller community, but the sites there are higher quality, and with the use of quality outproxies to tor, it makes for a much lovelier experience.

>another "Interwebz iz kaputt"-thread whew. Well, it's not like we have any other alternative, other than to adapt, right? It's what humanity has always been doing, and currently there is a cold war going on, complete with arms race and propaganda. game cracks and DRM, animu piracy and licensing, internet forums and censorship, it's conflict on all fronts. We decided to stand on the side of free speech, free open-source software, anti-DRM and anti-establishment. We will be fuarrrked, and we will go on and keep pirating, discussing, circumventing, breaking taboos, and so on. Don't get discouraged, the wired is still connected, the powerlines still humming, the lain is still loved. good luck.

>>58979 >the only darknet that has enough activity to be usable How do you define usable? A complete replacement for the clearnet? Tor isn't that either. Breaking down the essential things a darknet needs to, and can realistically have, and then working to make it have all those things would make sense and bring in more users.

Most of these nets all depend on the clearnet infrastructure to self sustain. If clearnet really went away, there'd be no Tor, no i2p, no freenet. I don't know about all the others but I assume same goes for them. These aren't replacements; they're parasites.

>>58989 Yggdrasil can work over meshnets. I2P can use Yggdrasil to reseed peers. Not all hope is lost.

>>58989 >they're parasites. Just how much do you like the taste of corporate penis? It's just infrastructure. It doesn't belong to the clearnet. By your moronic logic, irc is also a parasite.

>>58989 >>58992 I pay my isp. I can use the bandwidth I paid for however the fuarrrk I feel like.

>>58971 normal people have started to realize this is a problem, I've seen many begin to make exodus from larger platforms to smaller communities in hope of a freer space. I hope this exodus grows larger to the point of wounding the corps, it's not likely though. fuarrrk off flood detection, I just made a typo in the post goddamn.

>>58973 >Gopher (use Lynx) or Gemini So, the solution to internet becoming bad is using an alternative protocol which provides the same functionality as any standard browser through HTTP with disabled javascript? This is borderline ridiculous. If you want to just have documents in your browser with nothing else, you just need to change few config settings. There never was need to invent a new protocol. But the main thing though is that all these things are band aid solutions. If somehow magically the whole internet used gopher instead of HTTP, we would still change it into HTTP since the net needs to support more things than just documents. Although the idea that the internet is bad just because not everything is a document is silly too. Lainchan is not just a document, and if you are reading this, you are using it. To me the logical conclusion to trying to save free speech by just making sure what you say can't be heard easily by others is just bunch of nerds sending gibberish to each other, constantly anxious that their stuff doesn't get leaked, getting more and more paranoid and devolving into conspiracy theories. It's a weird definition of free speech: You can say anything you want, so long you make sure barely anyone hears it. That's not a world I want to live in. That sounds like world from a dystopian sci-fi novel. We simply shouldn't need to be so discreet. If I wanted to take a walk outside I want to live in a peaceful enough place I can do that without worry. Not have a personal tank so that I can be sure nothing can happen to me. >>58971 As for my view on OP question, simply make your own stuff. Host your own services, use alternative sites. A lot of what makes the net as bad as it is today is centralization. By putting everyone into one roof you get a lot of power over them, which is what big tech has done. That can't happen to any reasonable degree if different people own different parts of the net. I know you said this >Every small site must control what you say or they'll lose cloudflare protection and magically get DDOSsed the instant they lose the protection but this doesn't really happen that much. We are on a pretty small alternate sites and it keeps running just fine. When I think of what site got closed lately, I think of cripple chan. And I was there before it shut down and lot of it was filled with racism and borderline pedophilia for years that only got shut down when one guy went off a shooting spree. If what it takes to pull a site down is that it creates shooters, I am not going to pretend that's unreasonable.

>>58971 Check this out: loper-os.org/?cat=65 >>58974 The WWW is a textual protocol with misspelled words. People were worried about the collider, but worse came from CERN. >>59000 >the net needs to support more things than just documents. Consider using different protocols for different purposes. >If what it takes to pull a site down is that it creates shooters, I am not going to pretend that's unreasonable. Cleanse thy mind of this disease. Twitter and Facebook host worse soykaf and get away with it because they're supported by the government. The stream was hosted on Facebook first, wasn't it? There's no reasonable limit to free speech, which no one truly has, because any limit will be used endlessly. This is how we end up in the odd position of pedophiles who rape and eat children having people drawing cartoons arrested.

>>58992 fam, parasite ain't neccisarily a bad thing alltogether. >by your logic, irc is a parasite of course it is, as rightly it should be. And anyone who ever tells you IRC is going to replace the internet is an idiot. Doesn't make IRC a bad thing (doesn't make it good either of course), its just what it is. >its just infrastructure sure, but as roads are infrastructure that won't be replaced by busses, nor is the clearnet infrastructure that will be replaced by Tor. >>58991 >Yggdrasil can work over meshnets. alright, that's fairly interesting.

>>59005 >as roads are infrastructure that won't be replaced by busses Buses and cars use the same roads, just as irc and the clearnet use the same infrastructure. Roads aren't car's infrastructure, and the internet is not the clearnet's infrastructure.

>>58989 Even if what you said was true, why is that a problem? Nobody's going to get rid of the clearnet, so darknets could continue to parasitise off of the clearnet in peace. Do you think darknets should be able to persist, independent of the clearnet? The focus of darknets, in my eyes, is anonymity. They don't need to function in some kind of post-apocalyptic scenario where society has collapsed and there is no clearnet (not that I'm against such functionality of course).

>>59008 OK, you are defining the clearnet more narrowly than me and thats fair. If clearnet is places like the Facebook-car and twitter-van and most nromie sites are of that ilk, when you take the tor bus then you don't need cars, just the basic infrastructure which can support either and in the end doesn't care whether busses, cars, bikes or trolleys are riding over it. And IRC is over there riding a skateboard or something. Personally I don't like this definition, obviously you can use i.e. facebook over Tor, and you could over I2P too if they put up a site for it (like they have a Tor address). Facebook is a service and how you get there doesn't really matter, but arguing too much over an analogy doesn't seem like something I want to do.

>>59013 >and most nromie sites are of that ilk The roads are fiber optic cables going across land and water. Clearnet sites are anything that can be accessed with http by itself. This would include lainchan, so it is pretty broad. >you can use i.e. facebook over Tor, and you could over I2P too if they put up a site for it In that case, you aren't on the clearnet. >Personally I don't like this definition Why not? By whatever definition you use, i2p eepsites and irc are "parasites". Maybe any website that isn't "mainstream" too.

make your own site, you lazy soykafter.

>>59015 >Every small site must control what you say or they'll lose cloudflare protection and magically get DDOSsed the instant they lose the protection >just make your own site Are you being daft on purpose?

>>Every big site controls what you can say not for much yet

>>59037 Alright. Give examples of small sites that got DDOSed

>>58979 >give up and hide in the woods I refuse completely and in the strongest possible terms.

Darknets don't inherently address the issues OP brings up. A Tor hidden service or an i2p eepsite still has to financially support itself some way. Take a clearnet site that relies on ads, move it to a darknet, and it will still rely on ads. >>59004 >Twitter and Facebook host worse soykaf and get away with it because they're supported by the government No, Facebook and Twitter do not get the same treatment that cripplechan or stormfront did because Facebook and Twitter do not cater to the "problematic" people and they employ moderators to enforce rules to remove those people. It has nothing to do with the government.

>>59046 This raises a question I have regarding this topic: Is it possible to just pay the site-owner directly? Rather than the website rely on ads, what if people could pay the owner with Monero? What if people could "subscribe" to the owner and pay a monthly or even yearly fee? Could such a system be implemented? I mean, of course, putting the site behind a paywall is probably impossible. These "payments" would really have to be donations, but yeah, is that not possible?

>>59048 >donations, but yeah, is that not possible You can just put your crypto address and people can transfer to your wallet. Some people already do that.

>>59048 Many sites do this, but it's rare that it alone covers the cost of the site. Wikipedia is maybe the biggest and most successful that runs off of donations, but this doesn't address the core issue either. If you rely on ads, your content needs to be advertiser friendly. If you rely on donations, your content needs to be donor friendly. It may even make the issue worse. With ads, people are paying you for the ad space and that's all they feel entitled to. With donations, donors often feel like their donation entitles them to more influence over the site and when their influence isn't catered to, they stop their donations.

>>58971 The internet needs more spaces with intellectual entrance barriers. That's why most of you refer to some absurd technical protocol changes. What you ACTUALLY are looking for is some sort of filter to prevent ever increasing stupidity from ruining any kind of meaningful usage. The internet has become an absolutely retarded experience and THAT needs to be addressed somehow.

I remember what it was before 2007. We could ban phone users.

>>58971 >Every small site must control what you say or they'll lose cloudflare protection and magically get DDOSsed the instant they lose the protection Any info on this thing ? Any known incidents ?

>>59000 >If I wanted to take a walk outside I want to live in a peaceful enough place I can do that without worry. Not have a personal tank so that I can be sure nothing can happen to me. Welcome to USA philosophy. Recently in my feed a gun youtuber arguing in favour of civilian personal body armor. In response to OP: I've gone through this thread and agree with a lot that was said (OP as well) My conclusion is: Meshnet Meshnet Meshnet. The solution to the current copro-corpo state of the internet is decentralized, peer-to-peer, encrypted and anonymous, but the real kicker in my opinion -- and that which most "Anon" services nowadays don't include is that it needs meshnet capability. Otherwise anything else is too dependent on infrastructure to be truly free. Personally my dream is a short-lined cute little application I can install on any desktop and which would turn my laptop into a wifi sender/receiver. Basically creating like a meshnet interface over which I can theoretically send any date, even TOR if I wanted to. Personally I'd call it meshnode or something non-cheesy like that. I'm soykaf at coding so that's up to someone else, I did like 50% of the work finding a name anyways ;P (I'm not talking bluetooth bullshittening, obv, range too short) I'm imagining an android application with a "Share with friend" feature that can share the actual apk with a paired device *over meshnet* so that it spreads like a virus. You want to aim for nemesis-of-the-CCP kind of features/capabilities. All that is required nowadays is the will to work on solutions boys >>59055 This but to be honest I'd probably have to stop posting

>>59058 >wifi sender/receiver Wtf I'm retarded But you know what I mean! >any date any data Sorry doublepost, but now buddy can witness firthand why I'd stay at the door if IQ tests were involved

>>59055 Intellectuals™ can be censored just as much as anybody else. In fact, I think they're more likely to self-censor. >>59058 Wireless meshnets can't span across oceans and have god awful latency. It's a nice idea, but technically unfeasible if the goal is to replace wired infrastructure.

I'm glad someone brought up Gemini and alternative protocols in this thread. It's not an end all solution but a piece to the puzzle. We do need more protocols for different use cases for sure, it's just a matter of when and who will make it, will it be privacy/security respecting, and how long until normal people find out about it and romanticize that part of the internet next. Will the cycle ever end truly? Will we have to keep on making our spaces more complicated and a hassle to get to just to filter out the people who don't belong? How many layers are too many and how complicated should will they eventually become?

>>59039 >lainons actually think this disgraceful, Elon censors people all the time. This is about controlling a space to further grow his bs stan cult for dumb memestock bitcoin scheme's. I'll never stop laughing at Gab trying to suck his cock so much.

>>59057 Depends on what you define as small, the biggest incident that comes to mind is 8chan, albeit that was a pretty big site.

>small sites getting DDoSed You can use Tor (onion address) as DDoS protection. >>59000 >So, the solution to internet becoming bad is using an alternative protocol (Gopher and Gemini) which provides the same functionality as any standard browser through HTTP with disabled javascript? Yes. Gopher and Gemini both put the content before everything else. No JabbaShit, no telemetry botnet, no cancerous cellphone interfaces, etc. Gopher and Gemini (and Tor, etc.) also have a pleb filter that keeps the normal people out. >There never was need to invent a new protocol. But Anon, Gopher is almost as old as the WWW. >Although the idea that the internet is bad just because not everything is a document is silly too. Lainchan is not just a document, and if you are reading this, you are using it. There are gopher and SSH chans. With Gemini, you can have even more possibilities. >That sounds like world from a dystopian sci-fi novel. But it is (or at least it may become one). >As for my view on OP question, simply make your own stuff. Host your own services, use alternative sites. This. >>59004 >http://www.loper-os.org/?cat=65 >PEST Looks pretty cool! Someone needs to make a PEST client named "yersinia". Y. Pestis

>>59060 >Wireless meshnets can't span across oceans and have god awful latency. It's a nice idea, but technically unfeasible if the goal is to replace wired infrastructure. But I absolutely agree! And that's why I said meshnet as in an option to fill that gap, not as a standalone. I'm thinking that in order to make it a viable option that's basically a plus, what can be done is making the meshnet internet compatible, by using DHT in order to get nodes nodes to relay traffic over (in terms of physical location, kind of like bridges over the ocean or whatever) Depending on their personal settings and internet speeds. OR NOT, and just make a 100% pure meshnet with some intelligent routing design. I'm grasping at... straws, was the expression? I dunno what that means but basically I'm just brainstorming. The problem is I cannot think of even a classic meshnet application that's also easy to install and is also convenient. Maybe latency problems can somehow be fiddled into improvement. I'm just not thinking in terms of hardware device like meshnet router and that seems to limit things.

>>59058 >Welcome to USA philosophy. Indeed. We know a thing or two about liberation because we've seen a thing or two.

>>59040 Yeah I've never experienced a DDOS and also most hosting providers provide DDOS protection free of charge or for a few $ a month. >>59080 The Internet, as the layer 3 network, is pretty nice actually and as long as you stick to IPv6 also accessible and cheap. >>59046 >Take a clearnet site that relies on ads, move it to a darknet, and it will still rely on ads. Running a small site is extremely cheap why does everything have to be about money?

>>59081 Missed the point >>59082 I don't think this solution/philosophy can cure the root problem...

>>59078 >Yes. Gopher and Gemini both put the content before everything else. No JabbaShit, no telemetry botnet, no cancerous cellphone interfaces, etc. There's still no reason for their existence as this is just the same as HTTP with disabled JavaScript and CSS. You might say that lot of site will break if you use your browser like that, but these are the kind of sites that would never be on Gopher anyway, so the point is moot. You can today operate a site as if it was early 90s just fine. No need for a different protocol. >Gopher and Gemini (and Tor, etc.) also have a pleb filter that keeps the normal people out. Sure, you can live in your bubble of paranoids and tech geeks, but that's where the it starts and ends. No one will use it besides that. >There are gopher and SSH chans. With Gemini, you can have even more possibilities. So again, just standard HTTP functionality? The only real reason to use these alternative protocols seems to be in hopes of finding others who use it which to me Is just bizarre. I guess the line of though is that you'll find like minded tech geeks there, but you can find them just fine on HTTP too. It seems to me it's trying to stand out for the sake of standing out. It's not like these protocols do anything new. They don't innovative in any meaningful way as you can do anything they do with just HTTP. >But it is (or at least it may become one). And again, you have no answer to it. I can even imagine someone who's pro censorship encouraging your way of thinking since you just create a bubble of paranoids who keep each other on edge. You don't actually have any free speech, because if they had it you wouldn't need to use these alternative methods. It basically works on the basis of "so long no one hears what I have to say, there are no consequences behind my words" which is an absurd definition of free speech.

"The internet" is not what it used to be it is now a privatized platform, a corporate deadspace point-of-service. Thus there is NO saving it. The only future is to STOP using or should I say relying "the" "internet" and move on, what to move on to, well that's another problem. This concept of "the internet" being a single thing is completely fake as what you think is "the internet" is a locked corporate platform that takes advantage of the IP / TCP protocols. But anyone in theory can use such protocols, and make their own communications . Monopolization, centralization and globalization affects everything around you in the same way as it has ruined the internet. Think banking, mainstream media, movies, music, food distribution and so fourth.

>>59080 Maybe you'd be interested in this https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31 Delay-tolerant networking is a proposed way of compensating for low bandwidth, such as in a typical meshnet. It's mainly intended for use in outer space.

>>59078 >You can use Tor (onion address) as DDoS protection. Tor does not prevent DDoS. DoS is frequent in onionland and arguably more difficult to mitigate due to the anonymity.

You can prevent DDOS by blocking Tor, VPNs, and proxies, and using Cloudflare services. This is the only way to effectively prevent DDOS.

>>59088 You can setup a proxy server on a VPS. You can use DDoS-guard or other proxy solutions. fuarrrk Cloudflare.

>>59087 >Tor does not prevent DDoS. The point was that it hides the correct address/IP.

>>59090 I think that lain meant that people can use tor to ddos your clearnet website, not people ddos-ing your tor service.

>>59091 No there are also DoS attacks on onion services.

>>59088 >You can prevent DDOS by blocking Tor, VPNs, and proxies, and using Cloudflare services. Tor, VPNs, and proxies have never been good mechanisms for DDoS. DDoS requires overwhelming the infra as quick as possible, Tor is painfully slow and every single hop could block your DDoS. VPNs are quicker but have a limited number of IPs, making them a worse mechanism for DDoS. Reality is now that botnets built off hacked consumer IoT devices with residential IPs are the only way to DDoS, blocking Tor, VPNs, proxies are just a good marketing point to higher ups when a DDoS occurs: "We successfully blocked all the darknet traffic that is going to our site". Sounds good on paper, but literally pointless. DDoS prevention is about detecting when legitimate users are sending illegitimate traffic through a compromised device, and is extremely tough to do if not impossible with a good enough spoofing. You' literally have to set up a mountain of access controls, honey pots, anything where a legit user has 0% chance of interacting with. You're better off blocking nothing and just building a scalable infra that can absorb any DDoS attempt and just keep scaling up.

>>59091 No, I meant that hidden services are not DDoS resistant. I should clarify what I mean about the anonymity making it more difficult to mitigate. A typical DDoS mitigation strategy is to block traffic from IPs that are involved in the attack. When you run a hidden service, you cannot do this because you don't know the originating IPs. You also have to deal with DoS specific to Tor (rendezvous introduction flooding for example). >>59090 Which doesn't prevent DDoS.

In old times you would mask your knowledge in tomes like religious texts which is the oldest form of successful memes. Now you can do the same using encryption to hide your message in image memes. This way you can use all the popular open channels of the establishment to communicate without having to defend an alternative path. tldr: Instead of trying to fight the establishment mask your message in establishment conform imagery and let them spread your message for free.

>>58971 >What can we do? Is there no real free speech? One opinion is that it's all just screwed: https://archive.is/o/www.zerohedge.com/news/2021-10-28/where-sidewalk-ends-death-internet >you need peers. Peers are other ISPs that talk to your ISP. Peering is how the Internet actually works. When data traverses the Internet most of its route is done through third party networks, not your upstream directly. >If your content is offensive enough that peers start refusing to deliver content to or from your IPs, you can essentially be cut out from the world wide web. NTT refuses to peer with any company that peers with my subnet, for instance. >What few alternatives to Cloudflare exist are politically active. Voxility, Path, X4B, and others are competitors. Voxility is one of the worst in terms of being politically active. X4B is in Australia and beholden to strange, foreign laws about speech which are irreconcilable with the United States. Path peers with NTT and are unavailable to me because of NTT's embargo on my subnet. DDoS-Guard is a Russian alternative, but dealing with Mother Russia has its own issues.

>>58971 It's called an arms race lain, each "side" develops tools to fight the other until one gives up and the other wins by default. >>58972 Yeah, what this guy said.

>>59081 >we Hahahaha. you haven't seen anything because you haven't been a part of it.

>>59124 >NTT refuses to peer with any company that peers with my subnet, for instance. Having a Tier 1 refuse to take anyone as a transit customer that has you downstream is just completely fuarrrked up.

Saw this in a soykafty city today, made me think of you <3

>>59000 yes yes w*gger taking down sites because a shooter posted on them is fine as is jail for 30 years because you had a CP in ~/.mozilla you are an hero not that i care, since decentralized web already obsoletes this muricunt nonsense, but you same idiots will probably make the next web illegal because you can't take things down anymore

>>59056 We can do this and start making websites the least mobile friendly as possible

Stop complaining for "Le Big Corpo Internet" and use IRC or some similar soykaf.

>>58971 >How doomed is the internet? >Every big site controls what you can say >which means they have an active interface to hack Anon, this isn't doom, this is when the fun begins.

>>59219 why even be an isp if you're going to do this? it's so anti the point of the internet it's unbelievable.

>>61387 It's anti-the point of the internet you remember, or maybe only the one you've read about depending on how old you are. That was not how things ever really were save for one glorious and far too short decade in between widespread availability and AOL kicking down the pleb filter. Unfortunately, it's simply no longer the ethos of the average internet user, who either doesn't give a soykaf or is actively pro-censorship. It most certainly never was the ethos of the governments and power players who ultimately control internet infrastructure. The September is, in fact, eternal. We only do bread and circuses now, which'n you want?

I wont lie, things are pretty grim but so long as you keep your soul together they aren't totally doomed. We're still here aren't we?