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.
