On 28 Jun 2006, at 01:44, Volodya wrote:
Well, I have never heard or read that Toad said that, but the
response to anyone that did say that is that the darknet is there
so that it is available to those that need it. If people don't
need the security offered by participating in a darknet, then they
should use the opennet.
But that is a silly argument. Why have FProxy filtering content.
Isn't it obvious? Because most Freenet users don't want web-bugs to
reveal what websites they are viewing.
If people want security they can just view sites in plain text,
can't they.
They could, but why force users to do this when it is possible to
filter HTML?
But currently you aren't even warning people asking them what do
they want to do with external links, but simply remove them.
I haven't checked lately, but last time I did - users were warned
about external links, and given the opportunity to follow them if
they want to.
The reason for that is that when people ask somebody like me what
to use for their anonymity on the internet, i tell them about
freenet, with the opennet i will have to mention that they should
make sure to go for darknet if they want to be truly anonymous.
And what is wrong with that?
If you are approaching this from perspective "but people want it"
then a lot of people want blocks to be marked by the extension of
the file, so that they can say "i only want MP3 in my datastore"
are you planning to implement this? Then why are you still going
for the opennet?
Now this really is a silly argument. We don't make it easy for
people to filter their datastores because it would hurt Freenet, but
allowing people to be part of an opennet, having made an informed
decision to do so, doesn't hurt Freenet, it helps the network by
allowing more peers and a richer link density.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
