An open source Peer-to-peer serverless decentralized social media protocol built on IPFS

[Guest]

From the whitepaper:

8. The user completes the captcha challenge and publishes his post and
   captcha challenge answer over pubsub.
9. The subplebbit owner’s client gets notified that the user published to his
   pubsub, the post is not ignored because it contains a correct captcha
   challenge answer.
10. The subplebbit owner’s client publishes a message over pubsub indicating
    that the captcha answer is correct or incorrect. Peers relaying too many
    messages with incorrect or no captcha answers get blocked to avoid DDOS
    of the pubsub.
11. The subplebbit owner’s client updates the content of his subplebbit’s
    public key-based addressing automatically

I may be misunderstanding how this protocol works, but at step 10 what prevents the owner from publishing the captcha answer as incorrect as a method of censorship based on the content of the post?

[bb_c@programming.dev]

Apologies if I was presumptions and/or my tone was too aggressive.

Quibbling at No Moderation = Bad usually refers to central moderation where "someone" decides for others what they can and can't see without them having any say in the matter.

Bad moderation is an experienced problem at a much larger scale. It in fact was one of the reasons why this very place even exists. And it was one of the reasons why "transparent moderation" was one of the celebrated features of Lemmy with its public Modlog, although "some" quickly started to dislike that and try to work around it, because power corrupts, and the modern power seeker knows how to moral grandstand while power grabbing.

All trust systems give the user the power, by either letting him/her be the sole moderator, or by letting him/her choose moderators (other users) and how much each one of them is trusted and how much weight their judgment carries, or by letting him/her configure more elaborate systems like WoT the way he/she likes.

[boomkop3@reddthat.com]

This again? It's basically lemmy but less secure, stop advertising it

[Guest]

Do you mean spamming faulty captcha answers to trigger the DDOS protection on the peers?

[Guest]

No moderation seems like a recipe for disaster

[kissaki@programming.dev]

this project was created due to wanting to give control of communication and data back to the people

The "giving control of communication" goal seems to contradict the "viewer automatically shares without a choice" and the dependence on good-intent node owners not moderating their node content.

If a node owner hosts a community, what prevents them from moderating that community?

[sirdorius@programming.dev]

I’m personally not ok with not having a way to ensure that I’m not seeding nazi manifestos that were stealthing as a reasonably named subplebbit.

I kind of get the feeling this is exactly the content they want to help host when they refer to "censorship resistance". This was also the key selling point of Gab when it launched.

[tempy@programming.dev]

Well from their site

Moderation

Since there are no global admins, the administrative control of a subplebbit rests solely with its creator. No one else can moderate content or accounts unless the subplebbit creator grants them permission.

So, it's not that theirs no moderation. It's just "subplebbit" creator/delegates controlled as there is no over arching site wide company able to moderate it on the whole.

It will mean, as a user, you'll have to be liberal with removing subplebbits from your own feed though. I'm sure there will be some.. not so pleasant subplebbits appearing.

[Guest]

Good job

[Guest]

@Plebbitor I could not join the matrix, please check the server is OK

@programming

[sortekanin@feddit.dk]

no global admins, and no way shut down communities-meaning true censorship resistance.

"True censorship resistance" is not a desirable property. No normal user wants to deal with moderation. You need to have a structure for delegating moderation and such tasks to other people.

[mikina@programming.dev]

Is this reply AI generated?

[andybytes@programming.dev]

I will still check it out, but it doesn't mean I will adopt it.

[andybytes@programming.dev]

I liked "navel gazing" I'm keeping that one.

[kazaika@lemmy.world]

The owner can obviously moderate and thereby censor, anyway. Thats not the kind of censorship free this thing advertises. Its not more or less censored as lemmy is when instance hosts do moderation.

[anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

Hopefully! That way all the crypto bros will concentrate there and leave normal social media alone.

[Guest]

I was there for the early days of Voat, which was an earlier version of a Reddit clone. Those first few months were nice, but it quickly devolved into a hate-filled N*zi safe haven.

Fediverse has an early version of a bot problem, which is ubiquitous in all social media these days (thanks to state actors and also corpos that want you to think/feel a certain way). idk how the fediverse is handling the bot problem, but for now it seems to be less noticeable here than other places.

If the platform is truly "free speech" without any moderation, then it will quickly devolve into worse than 4chan.

Voat is gone now, which is a good thing, but if you have an programming background you can use an LLM to study the way it self-destructed by looking at the archive.org snippets. See how it quickly became theDonald but worse.

That is what will happen to this un-moderated decentralized social media protocol.

[refalo@programming.dev]

See Freenet/Hyphanet

Please don't, because it is literally the largest place online that openly trades CSAM. Law enforcement even run their own nodes there to try to catch people.

[chakravanti@monero.town]

Says who? Moderate your damn self, wannabe. Better yet, GTFO and don't touch this horror show. You might break a pinky.

[gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de]

i don't trust any messenger system that uses the word "serverless". such a word is misleading, at best, and a scam more likely.