• Dead Internet Theory

    From Ben Collver@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 19 23:36:04 2024
    From the transcript of an interview with Jason Scott:

    What I want to get to though is the fundamental lie of the
    Internet, which is that the internet is decentralized and that it
    functions as a a discrete series of interrelated parts that have to
    some extent some sort of temporary balance of power between equally
    powerful groups that causes the miracle of this interrelation to
    happen. But if you look at any aspect of it, it's been
    centralized: digital certificates, domain names, network
    allocation, and other aspects more Gentile like social media
    accounts or being able to talk with central communities that exceed
    anywhere past 5 to 10 million people. So anytime you get up to a
    certain number it just starts centralizing and as a result it
    becomes shocking to people when a centralized authority, in the
    name of anything ranging from benign to evil motivation, executes
    something by fiat. You wake up one day and now you can't have your
    Facebook and your messenger client be the same client for a
    technical reason you have no say in. There's no number you can
    call there's no one you can complain to: you're done.

    The dead Internet implies that there's something that can be killed.

    I totally get it if you've convinced yourself that you're on a
    decentralized honest to goodness community made up of real people,
    anything that pulls back that layer to show the circuits underneath
    is traumatic.

    If your perception of that tips over 50%, you're going to feel
    besieged like "Oh, I'm drowning in robots, what is the point, this
    isn't even people anymore." Once you have that perception then the
    Internet is dead to you in your heart. So the conspiracy idea that
    this has already happened and we can't tell, I find interesting.

    It's going to be a more and more salient question. It's already
    real on dating sites. As I understand it the chances of you having
    a positive interaction with an actual human being is fairly low on
    any well-trafficked dating site.

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w54AvFP_70>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Mon May 20 08:22:10 2024
    Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
    From the transcript of an interview with Jason Scott:

    What I want to get to though is the fundamental lie of the
    Internet, which is that the internet is decentralized and that it
    functions as a a discrete series of interrelated parts that have to
    some extent some sort of temporary balance of power between equally
    powerful groups that causes the miracle of this interrelation to
    happen. But if you look at any aspect of it, it's been
    centralized: digital certificates, domain names, network
    allocation, and other aspects more Gentile like social media
    accounts or being able to talk with central communities that exceed
    anywhere past 5 to 10 million people. So anytime you get up to a
    certain number it just starts centralizing [...]

    It’s worth thinking about how it could be otherwise (and there are real attempts to make it so).

    If you want globally unique names then a central naming authority is an
    easy way to do it. Examples are the DNS (or more precisely the DNS as
    reached from the IANA root) and the Internet PKI (technically there are
    several central authorities here - browsers and OS vendors - but the
    number is very small.)

    It’s not the only way; if you generate random ‘names’ of sufficient size then the practical effect is global uniqueness - but they tend to look
    like R+eZuTq1R5C8gniEcPmU, not much good for everyday use by normal
    human beings.

    Usenet as a technology has a somewhat centralized model: for the most
    part if a name exists in two places, it means the same thing, but it
    isn’t guaranteed to exist in any particular view of the network. As implemented, most sites delegate to a centralized authority in the form
    of a standardized.

    PGP attempted truly decentralized key distribution, but adoption is
    negligible, even though it’s been available for decades. The poor
    quality of the software doesn’t help but the key distribution mechanism
    is just plain impractical outside very niche use cases. (Signal lets you
    do in-person public key distribution, but in practice it mostly
    delegates to phone numbers for identity and ‘trust on first use’ for
    keys.)

    I think the core point here is that centralizing authority works and,
    mostly, attempts at decentralizing authority do not work. So...

    But if you look at any aspect of it, it's been centralized

    ...it was, inevitably, always going to be centralized.


    (Decentralizing implementation can work relatively well, in comparison -
    DNS and PKI both being examples.)

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Mon May 20 07:58:43 2024
    On Mon, 20 May 2024 08:22:10 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If you want globally unique names then a central naming authority is an
    easy way to do it.

    I’m not sure you could describe the DNS as a “central naming authority”. Look at the proliferation of registrars, and the opening up of all kinds
    of random new TLDs, obviously as a revenue-generating exercise.

    Once you have a domain name registered, you are free to use the entire namespace under it for your own purposes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Mon May 20 10:24:48 2024
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
    Usenet as a technology has a somewhat centralized model: for the most
    part if a name exists in two places, it means the same thing, but it
    isn’t guaranteed to exist in any particular view of the network. As implemented, most sites delegate to a centralized authority in the form
    of a standardized.

    a standardized control.ctl.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon May 20 10:44:19 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
    Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    If you want globally unique names then a central naming authority is an
    easy way to do it.

    I’m not sure you could describe the DNS as a “central naming authority”.
    Look at the proliferation of registrars, and the opening up of all kinds
    of random new TLDs, obviously as a revenue-generating exercise.

    Once you have a domain name registered, you are free to use the entire namespace under it for your own purposes.

    I did allude to this briefly in the previous post, but it can be
    expanded upon. The authority is delegated, but it is delegated from a
    central point. If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your
    chosen names.

    You can certainly say it’s a social limitation rather than a technical limitation: you can set up your own roots if you like. But approximately
    nobody will pay any attention if you do. The social limitation is no
    less real than a comparable technical limitation.

    In contrast the PGP web of trust doesn’t have this property. There’s no single point of control that can deny you use of the system. Certainly a coordinating gorup of key server operators could make your life harder,
    but your neighbours’ signatures on your keys still exist.

    UUCP bang paths had a weaker (totally unsecured) form of the same
    property.

    The nearest you can get in PGP to a single centralized point of control
    is the software implementations. But there are several and even though
    one is fairly dominant, its open source nature means that any attempt to exploit its position would be highly visible. So again there is a social
    vs technical point here: the GnuPG authors could, technologically and with incomplete but nevertheless wide coverage, ban you from using your keys;
    but for social reasons this is extremely unlikely to happen.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Mon May 20 12:53:45 2024
    Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote or quoted:
    It's going to be a more and more salient question. It's already
    real on dating sites. As I understand it the chances of you having
    a positive interaction with an actual human being is fairly low on
    any well-trafficked dating site.

    How I view the internet depends on which part of it I cherry-pick
    to look at.

    Why would the author even expect a positive interaction with an
    actual human being when going on a commercial dating site?

    I don't know if commercial dating sites on the internet were
    ever any different or better.

    Back in the day, before the internet was a thing, there used
    to be these marriage arrangement institutes. So I could write
    about the "death of the real world" like this: "Folks, I've been
    out there in the real world, and let me tell you, it's a pretty
    bleak scene. If you hire one of those marriage arrangement
    institutes to try and line you up with some nice ladies
    - it's a total disaster!" Yeah, but in the real world there are
    thousands of other things besides matchmaking services.

    The internet is infrastructure. It provides the opportunity for
    peer-to-peer structures just as much as centralized ones. People pick
    and choose what they want from it. If people tend to use centralized
    services in certain cases, it's likely not the internet's fault.

    You can actually meet people over the internet, but it might happen
    more often through other means than commercial dating services.
    (I can't say much about that, since I don't have personal experience
    with those commercial services nor have I read much about them.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Mon May 20 15:14:02 2024
    On Sun, 19 May 2024, Ben Collver wrote:

    From the transcript of an interview with Jason Scott:

    What I want to get to though is the fundamental lie of the
    Internet, which is that the internet is decentralized and that it

    And don't forget electricity! Power generation for most of us is also very centralized, and if it goes away, it takes the internet with it.

    Some have solar here, but the other end most likely is traditionally
    powered.

    Your ISP is a case of centralization, and also, the currency you pay your internet and electricity provider is centrally managed.

    As you say... it is a fun thought experiment to think about how this can
    be avoided or mitigated.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Mon May 20 22:37:26 2024
    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your
    chosen names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to get
    it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Tue May 21 17:21:25 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    On Mon, 20 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your
    chosen names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to get
    it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.


    I thought it was several pirate bays being operated by different people? Granted, that doesn't change anything from my perspective, and I'm happy
    they are working and it is a good example of decentralization in a
    centralized structure (well part of it at least).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordinator@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 21 21:32:21 2024
    On 21/05/2024 16:21, D wrote:


    On Mon, 20 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your
    chosen names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a
    high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to get
    it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.


    I thought it was several pirate bays being operated by different people? Granted, that doesn't change anything from my perspective, and I'm happy
    they are working and it is a good example of decentralization in a centralized structure (well part of it at least).
    Both of you are right. Yes, there are multiple Pirate Bays, but there's
    an 'official' Pirate Bay located at thepiratebay.org. Granted, this
    domain has changed hands many times over the years, and it no longer
    resembles the original site very much (ads etc.). However, making a copy
    of TPB is trivially easy as it's all magnet links. All of the million
    plus torrents are about 100M in size.

    To be fair, TPB is a malware-ridden shit-hole filled with dead torrents
    and whatnot, but that's outside the current discussion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Tue May 21 21:55:08 2024
    On Tue, 21 May 2024 22:32:48 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t like your
    face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your chosen
    names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a
    high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to
    get it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.

    The fact that The Pirate Bay is apparently still going in some form is neither here nor there. The statement is about control of a given domain name. Certainly the fact that it’s had at least one domain seized
    (albeit via centralized control over .se than the root) supports the proposition rather than contradicting it.

    You did say “your chosen names” (plural). So the fact that The Pirate Bay has been able to continue operating, under one name or another,
    essentially without interruption all this while, does disprove your point.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Gordinator on Tue May 21 21:56:38 2024
    On Tue, 21 May 2024 21:32:21 +0100, Gordinator wrote:

    To be fair, TPB is a malware-ridden shit-hole filled with dead torrents
    and whatnot ...

    As a Linux user, I don’t use it to download cracked software. Yes, there
    are quite a few dead/incomplete torrents. But as with anything, Sturgeon’s Law applies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Tue May 21 22:32:48 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your
    chosen names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to get
    it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.

    The fact that The Pirate Bay is apparently still going in some form is
    neither here nor there. The statement is about control of a given domain
    name. Certainly the fact that it’s had at least one domain seized
    (albeit via centralized control over .se than the root) supports the proposition rather than contradicting it.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Gordinator on Fri May 24 15:05:57 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    On Tue, 21 May 2024, Gordinator wrote:

    On 21/05/2024 16:21, D wrote:


    On Mon, 20 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:44:19 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

    If the people who ultimately control the IANA root don’t
    like your face, they can (with some inconvenience) stop you using your >>>> chosen names.

    Counterexample: The Pirate Bay. In spite of repeated domain seizures, a
    high-profile prosecution with convictions, and an ongoing campaign to get >>> it shut down, it continues to operate to this day.


    I thought it was several pirate bays being operated by different people?
    Granted, that doesn't change anything from my perspective, and I'm happy
    they are working and it is a good example of decentralization in a
    centralized structure (well part of it at least).
    Both of you are right. Yes, there are multiple Pirate Bays, but there's an 'official' Pirate Bay located at thepiratebay.org. Granted, this domain has changed hands many times over the years, and it no longer resembles the original site very much (ads etc.). However, making a copy of TPB is trivially easy as it's all magnet links. All of the million plus torrents are about 100M in size.

    To be fair, TPB is a malware-ridden shit-hole filled with dead torrents and whatnot, but that's outside the current discussion.


    Had no idea, thank you very much for the update!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)