Either you're trolling or you just hung yourself there, because I feel like you're arguing my point for me by arguing your own ad-absurdum.
You could do with some reading on network vs. application layering btw (Both Tor & Twister muddle these somewhat with a network overlay and an application built atop that). "Censorship" would be forcibly preventing nodes other than your own from communicating, and would need to be a routing-layer intervention. What is proposed is an application layer intervention allowing me to refuse to communicate with a node I don't like, which isn't censorship, and never was, and never will be. Also, you need to better distinguish between algorithm (which you can't change with code, and which can shape or chage the context of law) and code (which you can change but is not immune to law), and law (which you can't re-code, but which can compel code). Tor can legitimately claim not to be able to intervene in encryoted communications because the algorithms simply prevent it, code be damned. Twister has no such layering: the code is everything, and if code is law then law is also code. Only Algorithms get a free pass from law (so far). Rest-of-room: ZZZ's asking me to relay child porn in cleartext, and falsely conflating that with justice and censorship, really sort of highlights why this commons needs rescuing. Looking forward either to this much-needed or a fork. I'd offer a PR but I'm not so good with C(/++)! On 12 September 2015 13:28:32 IST, Uncle Zzzen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 2:41:01 PM UTC+3, Cathal (Phone) >wrote: >> >> You're swapping context. >> >Nope. The context was [and remains] censorship. > >Because Tor *cannot* filter content >> >And that's a *good* thing. Right? It's not "poor litle tor, too bad it >can't censor", it's a feature. Unlike tor, for twister, >censorship-resillience is *the* feature. >Now *you* stop switching context [to tor] :p > > >> , Jacob, and I, agree that investigating CP sites needs to be a >forensic >> task. >> >> Maybe, but what you don't seem to agree with Jacob is that if there >*is* >a way to block information, it *will* be used by *hostile* poeple >against >benign *victims*. > >> Twister may have similar goals but is architecturally entirely unlike >Tor. >> >Right. > >> It's more like Freenet without baked-in traffic mixing. >> >I wasn't the one who talked against switching context, but please, >stick to >the point. Twister, censorship, paedo, forensics, apelbaum. > > >> Pedo material is shared in cleartext, replicated, and stored by all >users >> adjacent to it. >> >So now you're a paedo expert? [citation needed] > > >> It can and should be filtered by them, ' >> > > >> and if they feel like helping investigators they should record where >they >> got it so the source can be located. >> >> Investigations are not something you should "feel happy" to cooperate > >with. Formal investigations are 99% coverups by the paedos themselves >[UK >prime fokking minister Heath used to *be* one FFS. Would you be "happy" >to >help an investigation by his lackeys?] Heck. To *really* investigate in > >such an environment you need bigger balls than Annie Machon ;) > > >Even so, intermediaries shouldn't be liable if they unknowingly relayed >CP. >> >Wrong: by giving people the "right" to censor [because paedo is bad and > >nevermind forensic I got a smart answer here etc.] you turn them into >hostages [say, of a paedo judge]. Today I can't stop relaying shit even >if >I wanted. This is something I can tell a judge. >Don't *rob me* of this important *right* by saying you're giving me the > >right of choice. I'm no choire boy. I'll bite your dick off if you get >cheeky. > > > >> But that's a legal issue, >> >Legal issues are for the poor. The rich get bailouts, not justice > > >> code can't help with that. >> >google up "code is law lessig" > > > >> People think if Twister is deliberately designed not to let me filter > >> content that I can claim helplessness before a judge? >> >Yes > > >> Don't make me laugh. A judge would throw that out instantly. >> >And do what? impelement that feature? He can't do it unless you [his >minion] helps > > >> Twister is not Tor. Parallels between the two aare technically and >legally >> worthless. >> >> > >> You want me to knowingly store and forward child porn and think my >failure >> to is "cebsorship" or "obstructing justice"? >> >Yes!!!!!!1 > > >> You understand neither word. >> >> Enlighten me -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "twister-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
