[HN Gopher] Xeres: Uncensorable Peer-to-Peer Communications
___________________________________________________________________
Xeres: Uncensorable Peer-to-Peer Communications
Author : thunderbong
Score : 55 points
Date : 2025-09-27 18:39 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (xeres.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (xeres.io)
| crtasm wrote:
| I've not heard of this before. It recently hit v1.0
| https://xeres.io/news/version-1-0-0-released/
| homeonthemtn wrote:
| >Without it, abuses are made and evil people take control.
|
| Which will also happen with a zero control, zero responsibility
| platform.
|
| A given chat will get horrifically toxic, there will be no way of
| moderation, so users will be forced to create a new chat which
| will in turn get horrifically toxic and so on and so forth.
|
| No, thank you.
| pfix wrote:
| I'm not familiar with retroshare but from a quick research it
| seems you only receive content from people you're connected
| with and their connections. So it should be pretty
| straightforward to remove toxic connections
|
| http://retroshare.wikidot.com/en:faq#toc1 (Lost the link where
| there was an example on how to split a group chat if one person
| leaves that connected two groups)
|
| And I can imagine it's possible like with ad block plus et al
| to have local blocklists in your client. Its not like we have
| this situation elswhere (mail, web) so...
| ktallett wrote:
| Not every platform should be moderated.
| logicchains wrote:
| It's rather a world where every platform is 4chan than a world
| like the Chinese internet where no platform allows criticising
| the government.
| twelvedogs wrote:
| You directly choose who you can chat with, you moderate by
| removing the person I would assume
| akersten wrote:
| This is a friend to friend protocol, so you have the power, and
| should exercise it, to remove negative influences from your
| social graph.
| Xunie wrote:
| Zero responsibility? You are always responsible for the things
| you say, both morally and legally, both here and elsewhere.
| Even in public spaces like town squares or hn comment sections.
| (hn sux, lmao.)
|
| If a chat gets toxic by your standards, just leave. No one
| forces you to stay in a chat where you don't want to be. On the
| other hand, governments do censor and scan your private
| messages. Good cryptography and trustable software mitigates
| that partially but not entirely. Privacy and autonomy are
| fundamental human rights. Seemingly, the only way to enforce
| them is by exercising your rights and holding your government
| accountable.
|
| I'd rather be abused by a toxic community I can willingly leave
| than be abused by a toxic government who can take my voice
| away, imprison me or worse. They can do that to anyone at any
| time. Laws like SLAs are worth the paper they're written on.
| And so software that prioritizes censorship-free speech is a
| tradeoff to be made and cannot be personally made -- it has to
| be made as a group. (Software like anything else can still be
| outlawed!)
|
| The recent events with governments eroding privacy, consumer
| rights and other rights is a good reason to be wary and a good
| reason to get active and start exercising those rights.
|
| Re: moderation. I don't know about the moderation tools of
| Xeres, but it seems trivial to be able to boot people from the
| chat.
|
| Use your free speech to be kind to one another.
| pluto_modadic wrote:
| I agree that moderation tools are important :) one of signal's
| failings is the lack of moderation tooling. You can have small
| scale group moderation without having government scale
| surveillance.
| Refreeze5224 wrote:
| With ChatControl looming, I am glad this exists, and I hope we
| will continue to have a diversity of choices in private encrypted
| messaging applications.
| integralid wrote:
| TFA is pretty cool and the technology is exciting.
| Nevertheless...
|
| Tech people always think that everything can be solved with
| better technology. See, we made a protocol for uncensorable
| communication, now privacy is restored and the evil government
| plan is thwarted.
|
| No, if e2e becomes illegal, noncompliant apps outlawed and
| taken out of appstores, if by using this people will risks a
| fine or prison time or even just police checking you're not
| actually a pedophile who needs to hide something - regular
| people won't use it. A small fraction of privacy nerds may do,
| but that's not significant on a social level. This won't solve
| recent world privacy problems.
| analog8374 wrote:
| Assuming that a bad-people-filter is necessary, what would you
| use to recognize them?
|
| 2 that I can think of : 1) An AI badness pattern recognizer. 2)
| Vetting by trusted people.
|
| It wouldn't have to be perfect. Would it?
|
| That's a big assuming, yes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-27 23:00 UTC)