[tor-talk] Facebook brute forcing hidden services

[rysiek]

Hi,

okay, fuck that, I'm going to dive in, because the level of FUD is strong in 
this one.

Dnia niedziela, 2 listopada 2014 12:19:24 edhelas pisze:
> I can resume this fragmentation issue by a simple sentence that I'm
> saying more and more these days : "If you have a problem, do not write
> an API, write a protocol".

Sure:
https://xkcd.com/927/

I don't understand why we need over9000 different, incompatible federated 
social web protocols. It would seem to me we need *ONE* with several *GOOD* 
implementations.

> The social federation protocol is already here : it's XMPP. And yes it
> can support everything a social network has to offer (feeds,
> subscriptions, profiles, contact list…). There is already millions of
> users on the XMPP network, and you can easily find several clients on
> all the plateforms for it.
> 
> I'm working since 2008 on the Movim project (https://movim.eu/), to
> build a full, good looking, "decentralized" (federated) and open source
> social network on XMPP. And believe me, yes it's possible.

I won't discuss that. I will however point out that "possible" is not enough.

> I like the link that the guy made in the presentation with Firefox. Why
> Firefox surpassed IE ? Because they just choose to implement the W3C
> standards and try to improve it (and they offer some nice features too).

Absolutely.

> Diaspora, GNU Social, Friendica are not trying to do that, they create
> their own "proprietary" protocol

Oh, wow. Do you even understand the words that you use? I mean, "proprietary"? 
It's documented, the code is open, the protocol has at least two FLOSS 
implementations. Seriously, what were you trying to achieve here?

> to talk between each other and after that face the same issues than all the
> others network : "Hey, we are not compatibles ! Lets create an API and the
> other networks will be compatible with us".

No. They created a protocol that other networks implement. For example 
Friendica implements GNU Social's protocol, Diaspora's protocol and their own 
(documented, opensourced) protocol. Red similarily.

Reading a bit on it would be a good idea.

> So keep calm and implement XMPP ;)

No. Come to The Federation assembly at #31C3, get involved in a more 
meaningful way than calling open protocols "proprietary" just because you 
don't know them, and try working with quite a few projects that already 
cooperate and federate with common *protocols* (not APIs).

The question is not "which protocol is better", because while we bikeshed on 
this question, people are still sitting on Failbroke and Shitter, instead of 
moving out of these walled gardens.

The question is: "how can we *cooperate* to get people on the libre, federated 
side of social networks". 1.5 year ago I submitted to all the fedsocnet devs a 
simple question, here's the link again:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedsocweb/2013May/0058.html

The answer was: "impossiburu, we won't, not invented here, my protocol is 
better than yours". So instead of trying to herd those cats, I am grabbing the 
opportunity arising from the fact that we already have The Federation. Let's 
expand it and build upon it, eh?

Shouting "XMPP! XMPP!" is not helping.

-- 
Pozdr
rysiek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20141102/8595fc36/attachment-0002.sig>