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 [...]
But if you look at any aspect of it, it's been centralized
If you want globally unique names then a central naming authority is an
easy way to do it.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:Both of you are right. Yes, there are multiple Pirate Bays, but there's
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).
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.
To be fair, TPB is a malware-ridden shit-hole filled with dead torrents
and whatnot ...
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.
On 21/05/2024 16:21, D wrote:
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.
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).
To be fair, TPB is a malware-ridden shit-hole filled with dead torrents and whatnot, but that's outside the current discussion.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 343 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 06:44:51 |
Calls: | 7,553 |
Files: | 12,730 |
Messages: | 5,653,173 |