sanity

How does someone "steal" the name of their own project?

It's clearly an effective label, otherwise it wouldn't be so widely used.

The real objection is that supporters of the ideology dislike the characterization embedded in the term.

Most people don't know the academic umbrella term, but if you ask for examples of "woke", it's usually pretty obvious they're referring to Critical Social Justice ideology and its associated norms.

People can argue about the boundaries of the term, but pretending nobody knows what is being referred to is not a serious argument.

"Woke" refers to Critical Social Justice ideology, hope that helps.

I'm not sure what you mean, Freenet is at least as decentralized as bittorrent.

The two systems aren't that different in this regard, both replicate data along request paths.

In both systems data will tend to cluster on peers close to the data's location because otherwise requests couldn't find it.

The main difference is that in the new Freenet the content can be updated, with updates propagating through peers hosting the content.

> I win this argument, and you lose.

lol

What is the issue? Please be specific.

And? The new Freenet provides a menu of options for anonymity which is strictly better than imposing the same (imperfect) anonymity solution on everyone.

If you have a point to make you should make it.

It refers to Critical Social Justice ideology. There are entire books, academic papers, and debates about it from across the political spectrum.

Fair enough, I misremembered the timeline. My broader point was about identitarianism and ideological conformity, regardless of what terminology I used at the time.

Gnutella was decentralized like Freenet, but it's broadcast search approach limited scalability relative to Freenet's "small-world" approach which can scale indefinitely.

Appreciate the suggestion. It's often difficult to know where to start when explaining a project like this.

The freenet-git work is quite recent but we do feature River, our group chat app, fairly prominently on our installation page[1] so that people can quickly try out something useful. River is by-far the most fully developed app so far.

[1] https://freenet.org/quickstart/

> Why would I answer that when you already said one statement being wrong doesn't matter?

I never said that.

> The fact that evidence is not provided, if anything, is an indication of potential wrong doing.

No, that's not how evidence works.

You're starting from the assumption of wrongdoing and then treating the lack of evidence as confirmation of your suspicion.

Meanwhile we've spent the last 5 years publicly building a working decentralized platform.

Apparently you follow him a lot more closely than I do, nonetheless I stand by my point even if I might use different words today.

And yet I still haven't seen anyone explain how the goals actually differ.

Interestingly, there seems to be very little overlap between the people giving substantive technical feedback and the people most upset about a 3-year-old naming controversy.

Good chat.

It isn't "natural" to make baseless accusations based on zero evidence.

The personal insults really lend credibility to your argument.

I didn't bring in anything, someone linked to 3-year-old out of context posts to a mailing list - I explained the context.

> If his definition of woke mind virus is "identitarianism", then it's agree that it's fucking awful. But I wouldn't call it "woke mind virus".

Bear in mind that I used the term 3 year ago - which was before Elon Musk popularized (and polarized) it.

Someone digs up obscure 3-year-old posts to a defunct mailing list and suddenly I'm a "culture war crusader" sigh

If we're doing archaeology, my original 1999 paper was called "A Distributed Decentralized Information Storage and Retrieval System".

> Though reusing the name for an entirely different project with a different codebase is disingenuous to say the least.

Same project, same goals, and it's not even the first time we started with a fresh codebase - we did it in 2008.

> That won't do his reputation any good, especially in a field where reputation matters.

This drama never comes up anywhere except HN where it seems to be the obsession of a small number of vocal people who never have anything to say about the substance of the project. I don't lose any sleep over it.

> the _point_ of freenet was that you could anonymously share/store information.

As you can with the new Freenet, you just get a menu of options instead of being forced to use a one-size-fits-all approach to anonymity.

> The question was "How are the goals different?"

A question you haven't answered.

> Please explain how "the new freenet" tackles censorship resistance.

Primarily through the same core mechanism as the original Freenet design: decentralization and relaying requests through multiple peers such that no individual peer sees the entire request path.

The new design also supports pluggable anonymity systems such as mixnets and onion routing. In some respects these are stronger than Hyphanet's approach because relay selection can be chosen intentionally by the user's node rather than emerging implicitly from network topology.

The main architectural change is that anonymity is no longer treated as a single mandatory mechanism baked into every layer of the system. Different applications can make different tradeoffs depending on their requirements.