On Wednesday 17 June 2009 16:26:40 Zero3 wrote: > Matthew Toseland skrev: > > On Wednesday 17 June 2009 09:54:18 Zero3 wrote: > >> Matthew Toseland skrev: > >>> On Tuesday 16 June 2009 21:53:09 Zero3 wrote: > >>>> Matthew Toseland skrev: > >>>>> On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:24:39 Zero3 wrote: > >>>>>> a) On the front page of the website: A "What is Freenet?" teaser > >>>>>> linking > >>>>>> to the "What is Freenet?" page would be cool. Confusedly started to > >>>>>> read > >>>>>> the news item instead. (She should have spotted the "News" headline, > >>>>>> but > >>>>>> I agree on the teaser) > >>>>> I think originally the reason for putting news on the main page was > >>>>> that a lot of people check back on the website repeatedly, looking for > >>>>> new stuff (i.e. news) ?: > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree we should have some basic explanation and link on the home page > >>>>> though ... I am not quite sure whether just copying the first para from > >>>>> "What is Freenet" as Dieppe has done is sufficient? > >>>>> > >>>>> "Freenet is free software which lets you publish and obtain information > >>>>> on the Internet without fear of censorship. To achieve this freedom, > >>>>> the network is entirely decentralized and publishers and consumers of > >>>>> information are anonymous. Without anonymity there can never be true > >>>>> freedom of speech, and without decentralization the network will be > >>>>> vulnerable to attack." > >>>>> > >>>>> Followed by a link to learn more, a download link and news. > >>>>> > >>>>> Is this sufficiently comprehensible to newbies? I guess so, but it > >>>>> doesn't really answer the question! > >>>> I think it's quite good actually! I think "Without anonymity there can > >>>> never be true freedom of speech") is a bit subjective though. > >>> Alternatives? Clearly anonymity is a direct consequence of the overriding > >>> goal of thwarting censorship. > >> Ala "The anonymity of Freenet makes true freedom of speech possible" > > > > Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and > > publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on > > forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it > > less vulnerable to attack. > > > > Or even: > > > > Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and > > publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on > > forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it > > less vulnerable to attack, and if used in "darknet" mode, where users only > > connect to their friends, is very difficult to detect. > > > > ??? > > Sounds better to me.
Okay, I have pushed that one. One possible criticism is that it does not emphasise censorship resistance enough. The old version makes it very clear that our key goal is to resist censorship and everything else flows from that. 'Freenet is free software which lets you share files, browse and publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on forums, without fear of censorship. To prevent censorship, users are anonymous, and Freenet is decentralised. If used in "darknet" mode, where users only connect to their friends, it is very difficult to detect or block.' ??? > > >>>>>> Very annoying to be asked to install a second > >>>>>> browser. In this case, a third (using FF with IE as backup. And user > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> asked not to use IE). More FUD about history leaks. > >>>>> FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Unfortunately, the warnings > >>>>> about browser history stealing are factually true. Perhaps there is an > >>>>> argument for not naming such attacks if this intimidates people? Is the > >>>>> problem with IE important? There are possibilities for working around > >>>>> it, there has never been much enthusiasm for implementing them (even > >>>>> from ian who tends to be usability oriented). > >>>> Exactly. The user is fears the consequences of history leaks and is > >>>> uncertain what he ought to do, and thereby doubts his security and > >>>> privacy using Freenet. > >>> He knows what he needs to do - use a separate browser. Don't we make that > >>> clear? It may be annoying but it is clear, no? > >> It is indeed very clear, but as you say, also damn annoying. If > >> possible, I think we should avoid annoying the user. > > > > Well, any suggestions you may have... afaics the best option on windows is > > to run Chrome in incognito mode, and tell the wizard not to show the > > warning. But in that case we need to warn the user if they ever use another > > browser - and we can't tell the difference between Chrome in incognito mode > > and Chrome not in incognito mode, so I think we should display the warning > > anyway, we just need to rewrite it a bit for the case where we are using > > Chrome in incognito mode: > > > > "You must always use a browser with incognito mode for Freenet! > > > > You are currently using Freenet through Chrome in incognito mode. This > > should be safe. You should always access Freenet using Chrome in incognito > > mode, or through a browser you do not using for normal web browsing. The > > Browse Freenet link on the start menu should use Chrome in incognito mode, > > and so should be safe. Most browsers will work well with Freenet, except > > for Internet Explorer. > > > > Click here to continue." > > > > ??? > > I don't think we should display a warning when the user is browsing in > incognito mode. When the user is not (or we don't know for sure), we > could do it. How could we ever know for sure? If the user opens Freenet using the link and then starts browsing it using regular Chrome, there is no way to detect this, for example.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
