On 30/11/15 19:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. > Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to > get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is > clearly essential for todays communication. Why do you think people > would pay for Freenet?
They don't need them to. They harvest all their data and sell it to advertisers etc. If you're not paying for the product you are the product. If you are paying for the product we're probably selling your personal data anyway! In the first case, people contribute enormous sums to Kickstarter projects. Many of them are very successful in fundraising. The Kickstarter itself could raise significant funds - but only if we do it right. In particular, you need Stuff to give to donors. IMHO such a campaign would bring us significant publicity (a good thing in itself), and would have some chance of succeeding in delivering significant funds - probably a greater chance than if we just posted a pitch with some vague goals and goodies that they can get anyway from our cafepress store. In the second case, people don't pay for USING Freenet. They pay for the rights to be part of the core opennet infrastructure. They pay to keep spammers out and above all for fast performance. > People pay for VPNs because VPNs promise them faster, anonymous > copyright infringement — I’ve seen the ads on torrent sites. The > Freenet Project cannot promise that without encouraging copyright > infringement — which we don’t. > > And our communication sucks — with this thread a perfect example of > why it sucks. As much as I’m irked by the often toxic behavior of > niqnaq: this is something he’s right on. We have an existing > userbase. These users are our greatest asset. We might not like all of > them, but at the same time there are many awesome people using > Freenet. We’re neglecting them. We’re not doing the easy fixes. We don't have the resources. That's half of the problem. The other half is that opennet is irredeemably broken and being actively exploited. We can fix both problems simultaneously. > Instead we’re saying “let’s make you pay to keep using Freenet”. > > We need more people running Darknet, so why don’t we think of a way to > secure Opennet via Darknet? Darknet connections are the only thing at > which attackers don’t win trivially. Because 90% of the network at any given time has NO darknet connections, and that's likely to remain the case for a long time. Which means we can't use the social topology to secure anything. > And it might turn out that for funding, this pull request is the most > important of them all: https://github.com/freenet/website/pull/28 As I said, improving the website is important. But getting some major publicity is important too. And even with that it's doubtful that we can raise significant sums. > > Best wishes, > Arne > -- > Celebrate with ye beauty and gather yer friends for a Pirate Party! > → http://1w6.org/english/flyerbook-rules#pirate-party ←
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
