• Arsen6331 ☭
    link
    7
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The internet would be fine, it’s the web that would be destroyed. That’s not much of a problem if someone can get a bunch of decentralized infrastructure up that would allow peer-to-peer connections, but obviously anyone who does that isn’t going to get any funding from the bourgeois who want to control where and how users connect so they can impose restrictions and data collection.

    I’ve wanted to set up public, free infrastructure for p2p connections for a long time, but unfortunately, I don’t have enough money. Decentralized peer to peer communications require a bunch of servers all over the world that have open ports so they can facilitate the connections via hole punching and relay data if that’s impossible, and having only one server would be a single point of failure.

    This can be achieved using WebRTC (STUN and TURN), or once it gets more mature, libp2p. Both have implementations in many languages and can be used in a browser. I would love to do this, if only I had the ability to set up infrastructure everywhere or get people excited enough to self-host it.

    • @darkcalling
      link
      61 year ago

      The real problem is the “save the children, ban encryption” bills they have lurking around. They pass some of those variations that strip protection from providers and force them to be responsible for anything that transits them unless it can be handed over in clear-text on demand and it’s game over.

      Once they do that and mandate backdoors and ban any encryption that lacks it, they can force ISPs to police anyone using unauthorized, non-backdoored encryption and you instantly paint a very big target on yourself for using such services, perhaps even up to the point of being told to stop it or have your internet cut off by the ISP’s terrified of being successfully sued because someone using their service used non-backdoored, unauthorized encryption to commit a crime and they didn’t police and stop it and are therefore on the hook for millions in damages. That would quickly cause ISPs and providers to fall in line.

      As the empire collapses they may try extreme draconian controls in an attempt to quash any dissenting voices and properly contain everyone in their already astroturfed mainstream panopticon websites where they can do proper information control, identify people engaging in socialist thought, unionizing, etc.

      This is admittedly a worse-case scenario for some of the current bills floating around but it’s not much more than a skip and a hop away from them to this at best.

      • Arsen6331 ☭
        link
        31 year ago

        Yeah, I’ve seen those bills, they are very worrying

        • @darkcalling
          link
          31 year ago

          It’s one soft step above the military’s outlined strategy for dealing with near future domestic rebellion and uprisings which is to just cut off communications in relevant cities and blackbag and disappear prominent influencers who might side with and amplify the rebellion.

          They want to stop it from getting to that point though and they want full narrative control, full insight into who they might need to blackbag in future to make the lists now.

          The US is absolutely going to use modified Israeli tactics for occupation control of itself to maintain the empire longer in the face of potential domestic unrest in the face of foreign imperialism falling apart and unpopular wars.

    • @FuckBigTech347
      link
      51 year ago

      That would be quite awesome comrade. I would immediately put something like this on one of my Xeon boxes and play around with it.

      • Arsen6331 ☭
        link
        41 year ago

        The problem, and why it’s hard to get people to host it, is that nodes can take a lot of bandwidth, since they fall back to relaying data if they can’t establish a connection through hole punching on its own. While on most networks, the rate of success for hole punching with UDP is around 91% (much lower for TCP), it drops when the user is using a heavily restricted network such as one in a school or workplace, or if the user is on a mobile network. In these cases, a lot more people are going to have to relay their data, and unless there are a lot of servers to share the load, the bandwidth usage will be high.

    • @holdengreen
      link
      21 year ago

      well I want to know how to make a good radio module/antenna… so I can put it on a portable device that random people may be incentivized to carry.

      The internet would be fine, it’s the web that would be destroyed.

      They could just throttle any IP that isn’t on their list.

      That’s not much of a problem if someone can get a bunch of decentralized infrastructure up that would allow peer-to-peer connections, but obviously anyone who does that isn’t going to get any funding from the bourgeois who want to control where and how users connect so they can impose restrictions and data collection.

      That’s what I want, just need to try and do the work and see where it goes.

      I’ve wanted to set up public, free infrastructure for p2p connections for a long time, but unfortunately, I don’t have enough money.

      I don’t either, I just try to do my part anyways…

      so I’m gonna try to make a module and stuff, anyone else doing this here?