Support NeoGAF

[GeekyDad]

On the one hand, it sounds incredibly freeing. On the other, it seems like it could be a lot more dangerous than the Internet we have now.

Feedback?

 

[IAmRei]

what can we do, we live in cyberpunk already.
even if there is anything good or better in near future, will soon will be worst than before.
people will always found how to screwed others, especially big corpos.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Sounds like peer 2 peer in what he is describing which is a security nightmare. This is a lovely thought if we were all trustworthy on the internet but unfortunately by our very human nature we are not.

Pipe dream

 

[Trilobit]

AI Summary because I don't want to sit through 50+ minutes unless I know what it's about:

"The speaker presents Freenet as a decentralized alternative to today's internet, arguing that growing government and corporate control over online platforms, moderation, and recommendation algorithms threatens free expression and privacy. Instead of relying on centralized servers, Freenet distributes data across a peer-to-peer network where no single entity can control or remove content, while keeping users' private data on their own devices whenever possible.

The talk highlights recent progress on the platform, including working applications such as River (encrypted group chat), Delta (a decentralized website builder), Atlas (a user-controlled search and discovery engine), and Freenet Git, along with future plans for decentralized email, social networking, and online marketplaces. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes transparency, interoperability, and user ownership as core design principles, presenting Freenet as an attempt to recreate familiar internet services without the centralized infrastructure that makes censorship, surveillance, and algorithmic manipulation possible."

 

[Mistake]

Sounds like peer 2 peer in what he is describing which is a security nightmare. This is a lovely thought if we were all trustworthy on the internet but unfortunately by our very human nature we are not.

Pipe dream

If it's an isolated environment, I see no problem. Sounds good to me, but the biggest issue is how many users it takes to pull off, and most people aren't leaving their computers on like they do with servers

 

[nush]

most people aren't leaving their computers on like they do with servers

But their phones are. (Of course data usage issues and recharging are a limiting factor right now).

 

[GeekyDad]

Sounds like peer 2 peer in what he is describing which is a security nightmare. This is a lovely thought if we were all trustworthy on the internet but unfortunately by our very human nature we are not.

Pipe dream

That's exactly my thinking.

That being said, he only says that at the beginning, and then about midway into the video he mentions "our servers." I'm like, wait, what? I was starting to wonder if this was some kind real estate in Antarctica-type scheme.

 

[uncreativename]

Sounds good to me, in theory anyway. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say about how it'd work in practice.

Because the thing about servers is they're expected to be on 24/7, but normal people aren't going to do that with their devices. So when you send a message that isn't received, you'd need to automatically keep sending those messages periodically, until they are received.

I don't think it'd work for forums. There's too much data and too many users.

And then the other step is you'd need really good encryption because you'd still be sending data via ISPs.

 

[kevboard]

this will only work for stuff like simple forums and simple social media. larger files need a centralised server infrastructure, like something like Youtube wouldn't work with that probably, unless you limit the file sizes dramatically.