Tech censorship is technology. Are we as a society losing our ability to circumvent censorship?

Tech censorship is technology. Are we as a society losing our ability to circumvent censorship?

Attached: 1565392956113.jpg (900x1193, 295K)

I expect a reply that says "zeronet" in this thread and to that I say nice honeypot idiot

"We" are not losing more ability than "we" become illiterate and sold for cheap.

probably but at least i will be able to clap those squirrel cheeks in VR

yes.
free speech is dangerous.
the elites know that.

Reposting a summary of some of the conversation from last ZN thread:

So how do we solve the problem of creating a decentralized net but also account for the inherent glaring flaw with such networks?
These decentralized networks work by storing any content that you access, whether you meant to or not, on your hard drive and you then start seeding it like a torrent.
The problem is our legal system. If someone posts CP, you end up with it on your disk, plus you seed. Legally, that means you're both downloading and are a distributor of such content, intentions and realities of the technology be damned. Sure there's anonymity/encryption options like Tor, but it still seems like there should be a better middle ground.

Selectively deleting is not an answer here. One because by the time you do that you've still committed a felony, and two because you'd have to take the time to do that every browsing session and do it repeatedly using strong secure deletion algorithms.

Some other anons responded, stating that systems other than ZN have a more sane model, involving on-disk encryption of the cache in a way that can't be easily undone by the user, fragmentation of the files to provide plausible deniability, or both. Freenet is one that afaik does both. However, Freenet also only supports static content, which while nostalgic and nice (as well as secure thanks to lack of scripting), wouldn't exactly be conducive to the online world of today with user-generated content sites. Could an imageboard like this one exist without JS? Then again, there's security problems with JS on the web, and ZN mandates it in order for the network to even function. Then again again, the eighth of the channels decided to go with it for the backup, so if you want to use it right now that's the only way.

But when thinking about how the decentralized neo-web should work in a broader sense than that, it would be worthwhile to analyze all the options and promote what makes sense

Free speech is overrated anyways

tl;dr

fuck off
i want fucking say nigger on social media, trump
is based once again

Everyone has found out how profitable the internet is, the government, people, and corporations do not mind the digital monopolies when it benefits them, so nothing will ever be done to decentralize the internet in a way that would allow people to have more freedom of speech or allow it to revert to how it used to be with many websites instead of a couple popular ones.

Attached: 1546459939518.jpg (1024x768, 121K)

ZN's biggest flaw is that if someone posts illegal shit, you become a downloader (as in to your disk) and distributor of such contents automatically. Other options have more sane approaches in this regard, but are not without their caveats elsewhere. Let's discuss more about what makes for the best approach and why.

Umm... why does that image exist?

Centralization and the fact that financial institutions are throwing their weight around at smaller platforms

What's stopping you from trading messages via email using PGP?

Censrship =/= "REEE WHY CAN'T I SAY OR DO WHAT I WANT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PLATFORM! "

I wish you zoomer poltards could comprehend this.

Actually, that's exactly what censorship means

It's literally impossible to use the internet without using someone else's platform. You need an ISP. You need a website. You need a public IP address. You need a host. You need all kinds of shit.

Lmao

Exactly. This isn't a new thing, by the way..do you think people posted CP and other retarded shit on AOL? Internet is essentially entertainment, not some inalienable right. This is what happens when when consumerism dictates technology. I don't like aspects of it, but pseudo-anarchy isn't the solution.

>do you think people posted CP and other retarded shit on AOL
CP is illegal

>Internet is essentially entertainment, not some inalienable right
The Internet has effectively replaced the printing press. Both fall under the first amendment

You can stop now.

>gets utterly btfo'd
>j-j-just stop ok!

>cp is illegal
>first amendment tho

I like how normies are so brainwashed they see no issue saying things like this. I agree with the internet being entirely open and free also, no exceptions.

As a society, yes. Society is unable to circumvent censorship because it refuses to use the tools needed to do so.

Brainwashed how?

>first amendment
>oh yeah that thing is censored though and illegal

Since you refuse stop pretending yo be retarded, here's your last (YOU):
Whether CP is illiegal or not?, you do NOT have the right to publish it on SOMEONE ELSE'S PLATFORM.
The printing press is an awful example, and no, the Internet has not replaced it or television. For you, perhaps, but not the vast majority of the world. You are, however, perfectly free to buy your own printing-press (or just use a printer) and publish whatever you see fit. You can also set-up your own mesh-network and post whatever you like on it. Those are the perks of actual "freedom".

I want to put my dick through spongebob and into sandy's hairy pregnant cunt :)

Well, I suppose it's up the the sites to associate posts with a user, then let you mute a user if he posts something illegal, or to break down a site and let you remove parts you don't want to host.
Thing is, you don't get in trouble for merely having illegal content touch your hard drive. When you stumble upon a post, say, here, that has illegal content, you have to download at least the thumbnail (which is no less illegal content) in order for your computer to display it. And you have to see it and recognize it as illegal content in order to report it. Similarly, on zeronet, your computer has to download it in order for you to reject it. You choosing to SAVE it is a problem. And I'm not totally familiar with how zeronet works, if the content remains on your machine even when you go offline, there's a problem. You can't guarantee you muted everyone you were supposed to.
That problem may be solved by encrypting the site data so that even you can't access it offline, unless you choose to save something. Or it might not. I don't know if zeronet does this either way.

I'm arguing for the stuff that IS legal, but is censored. Like political positions or inconvenient scientific facts

I'm not arguing with the point that there is censorship, I'm just saying currently we even have the form of censorship that people pretend to oppose. As in on a government level.

Thats all I'm saying. Too many people quote first amendment and pretend like theyre for free speech but support censorship.

Having your post deleted for being against the rules is no censorship. The government regulating social media literally is censorship.

Corporations that control 90% of all search, videos and social media imposing ideology is not censorship, but the government trying to curtain their power is.

>if the content remains on your machine even when you go offline, there's a problem.
yeah that's what I mean. I'm not talking about the content being stored in RAM of the open browser application, because duh, it would have to be in there just like everything else. These decentralized networks, do absolutely cache content on your machine in a more permanent state. Unless i've been misled or I lack knowledge on this subject, the cache is in non-volatile storage.
Like I said, that solution of encrypting the data in a way that can only really be decrypted by the app for the sake of keeping the decentralized network alive has been done by Freenet. But Freenet also lacks proper support for dynamic content as stated previously. In terms of solving the legal problems of handling a decentralized, uncensorable Internet though, they seem to have that part down.

How is the baby gonna look like?

>losing our ability
No, just more niggerfaggotry

No. Deleting and removing speech is censorship, forcing a social media monopoly to not censor isnt censorship, but it can be argued that it violates the right to association (and disassociation).

However this right has been destroyed for a long time. Civil rights act, preventing whites from organizing, making slaves citizens without any kind of vote etc.

It's been ages since I last saw that image.

bump