On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 3:47:59 PM UTC+3, Cathal (Phone) wrote: > > 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. > My sentiments exactly 😇
> > You could do with some reading on .... > OK. educate me. > > > "Censorship" would be forcibly preventing nodes other than your own from > communicating, > You could use learning the law (or plain English). Censorship means maliciously obstructing comm. If you have a "right" to block comm, your opinion doesn't matter anymore [slave] the judge [you have no proof he's no paedo so he's a suspect] will force his on you (if he's a paedo, he's used to forcing his shit on folks) This has nothing to do with networking and layers. It's a moral, not tech/clerk issue. > and would need to be a routing-layer intervention. > > What is proposed is an application layer intervention > "Attack surface" is the term 😈 I don't care what your *intentions* are, you *will* become a pawn in their ugly game if needed. allowing me to refuse to communicate with a node I don't like > Define "like" [legal definition]. I thought p2p meant an *obligation* to the network, not "I'll help against censorship as long as I "feel like it". > , which isn't censorship, and never was, and never will be. > It is and ever and forever and whatever. A longer sentence isn't necessarily more true. > > 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). > Read "Code and other laws off cyberspace", come back when you know what you're talking about > > Rest-of-room: ZZZ's asking me to relay child porn in cleartext > No. I'm asking to *prevent* you from labeling *some* of the content "*bad*" (paedo is just *one* of the "4 horsemen <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse>"). In "my book" paedo something you can tag bits with. They're just *bits* they're not paedo until you *masturbate* on them. If you're investigating, they're *forensic* bits. If you run a backup service, they're *what you do for a living*. Deciding "what is not worthy of your backup service" is a *perversion* [no pun intended. I mean you gotta be *fokken sick* to want that power over information and not understand how much this can endanger your freedom]) > , and falsely conflating that with justice and censorship, really sort of > highlights why this commons needs rescuing. > > Replace "falsely conflating" with something neutral (say, "claiming this is what censorship is about") and I agree with what you say. This really highlights why we need to save twister [from people like you]. > Looking forward either to this much-needed or a fork. I'd offer a PR but > I'm not so good with C(/++)! > > I'm already planning a fork (100% i2p, different blockchain) so feel free to throw "real twister" to the paedo establishment (if miguel lets you do it). Fork is the word ;) -- 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.
