Could Zeronet Potentially Replace the Internet?

Credits
532
I've been looking into Zeronet recently, and although I'm still learning how to use it, it does seem like an interesting alternative to the current internet, especially since its goal is to be open, free, and uncensorable (as it says on the main page of it's website). To increase privacy and anonymity, they recommend using the Tor browser on top of it. However, because Tor is FOSS, I'd like to see the Zeronet developers create a fork of it so the features of Tor and Zeronet are combined into one. If that browser is included in newer versions of Linux distros, that's even better, because most distros don't have back doors in them. This is especially useful when it comes to protecting free speech, and organizing resistance, in the age of the globalist takeover (as we've been seeing since last year). My only small concern with that is the globalists could purposely hire moles to infiltrate these resistance groups so they can stay one step ahead. Although Zeronet's still in it's infancy, it'd be interesting to see businesses and organizations developing a presence on there to reach more people, and then when that's been stabilized, gradually reduce their presence on the internet. The only way I can see that happening is entrepreneurs being the first people to do that, and when that's become a trend, traditional businesses and organizations will slowly but gradually follow suit.

What's your opinion on Zeronet and could it be the new internet in the future?
 


KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
People don't like uncensored, as a general rule.

Oh, sure they claim they like it - until they actually see what happens.

The recently shuttered voat.co was originally a free-speech zone. It ended up being a white nationalist site populated with far-right wingnuts as the largest voice and controlling the site's content.

And that's what you're gonna get when you get anonymity and no censorship.

So... No, no it's not going to take over anything.
 
Credits
532
People don't like uncensored, as a general rule.

Oh, sure they claim they like it - until they actually see what happens.

The recently shuttered voat.co was originally a free-speech zone. It ended up being a white nationalist site populated with far-right wingnuts as the largest voice and controlling the site's content.

And that's what you're gonna get when you get anonymity and no censorship.

So... No, no it's not going to take over anything.
I never visited voat.co, but I can understand how that's the other extreme in relation to the social media giants being Orwellian. That still doesn't mean every single person would abuse free speech the second they were able to express it.

Whenever someone does abuse free speech, just remember "Please don't feed the trolls" ;)
 

KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
You don't have to express it. You seem to have missed my point. They'll bring it to you. You'll be talking about pastrami and they'll inundate your conversation with statements about Qanon and how Jews have ruined the deli business, then they'll call you a 'fa**ot' and call your mother a 'ni**er'.

It's that you can't avoid it. That's what no censorship means.

And that's why it'll never supplant the Internet on http.

Ain't nobody got time for that. Voat was just the last in a long, long line of other platforms. It happens EVERY time. If it hasn't already happened on zeronet, it's gonna.
 
Credits
532
You don't have to express it. You seem to have missed my point. They'll bring it to you. You'll be talking about pastrami and they'll inundate your conversation with statements about Qanon and how Jews have ruined the deli business, then they'll call you a 'fa**ot' and call your mother a 'ni**er'.

It's that you can't avoid it. That's what no censorship means.

And that's why it'll never supplant the Internet on http.

Ain't nobody got time for that. Voat was just the last in a long, long line of other platforms. It happens EVERY time. If it hasn't already happened on zeronet, it's gonna.
After putting it that way, I'll admit your responses have made me start to see things in a different light. However, although moderation has helped in most cases, there are some mods who are legitimate assholes on power trips. One example was when I was still on the official Mint forums, and right before I stopped using it, I made some sarcastic joke about a girl in a gif, asking "What if she was an SJW?". This led to the mods locking the post and giving me a hard time because they took it as offensive, and me firing back that they were throwing a bitch fit over practically nothing and pushing for a politically-correct agenda.

Again, I don't hate ALL moderators, but like you, I'm trying to think of how we can have websites/platforms/etc where the censorship is always rightfully-justified.
 

KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
What's the harm in being politically correct in a public forum? What's wrong with decorum?

I admit, it can be pretty zany, but I fail to see any harm in it. Yeah, people get offended easily. That's because we currently treat outrage like currency. The more outraged you are, the more attention you get. So, people find reasons to be outraged.

Amusingly, outrage is always taken - never given, but I digress...

And, most anyone who is censored is going to take offense and many tend to act out even more so when it does happen.

For the record, there is no perfect solution. In an ideal world, free speech would be frickin' awesome. In the real world, it's largely the uneducated and cowards that control the discourse. The below average and average outnumber the above average.
 
Credits
532
What's the harm in being politically correct in a public forum?
There's a major difference between tolerance and political correctness.

People who are tolerant will speak confidentially about uncomfortable truths, and will tell everyone else that they may not agree with what they said, but its still true and they have accept that as the point. On top of that, they'll usually explain what they're saying in a very relaxed, down-to-Earth kind of way. True, there are still morons who are quick to take offense to what the person said, but they wouldn't get angry nearly as much because they can't fully disagree with them. When other mature-minded people listen to or read what was said, they'll often stand behind that person and back them up. Often this causes the easily-offended person to make an ass of themselves because they're outnumbered, and when they realize they did that, they'll leave the conversation because now they're the one who has the problem.

People who engage in political correctness on public forums are often walking in mine fields. They'll be so overly-cautious to not offend someone that they'll inadvertently say something offensive, and boom goes the mine, causing them to get dog-piled by easily-offended immature twats who make that person never hear the end of their "grave mistake".
 

KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
You didn't express where the harm is, only why you don't like it.

You not liking it doesn't mean it causes harm. Sheesh...

There is no perfect solution. When you're in public, if you want to maintain good relationships with people, speak appropriately. And, more importantly, remember that you're not entitled to a platform that you yourself don't own. If you don't care about your reputation (and remember that "we" can now easily find archives of previous public statements) then say whatever you want, however you want to say it, and accept the consequences.

If it helps, nobody really cares about your 'uncomfortable truths' except you. If you want to speak your uncomfortable truths, hosting is cheap. If you can't speak your uncomfortable truths with civility, maybe they're not truths - they're just uncomfortable? (Don't worry, nobody cares about my uncomfortable truths either.)

And, again, I ain't got a solution for it. I doubt we'll find one for a few more generations. This whole online thing is pretty new for us as a society. We've never had the ability to amplify our outrage so easily and so widely available. Right now, it's a culture of outrage.

Give it a few generations. We'll get it sorted out eventually.

It's not so much that I have faith in my fellow humans, it's that I have faith in the almighty pendulum. Societal norms ebb and flow, swinging this way and that, eventually more or less settling for a while into some sort of almost-happy-medium.
 
Credits
532
You didn't express where the harm is, only why you don't like it.
To answer your question more accurately, the person who gets dog-piled will be harassed, bullied, and stalked (either online, in-person, or both), which will cause them to feel guilt and depression, and may lead them to take their lives (even if what they said or did was taken the wrong way). Yes, people make mistakes, but getting bullied for making a mistake has become so commonplace due to outrage culture. This is why some psychologists have studied the effects of social media, and found these exact problems happening. Its also why the term Twitter mobs has become a thing. Hopefully that answers your question.
 

f33dm3bits

Gold Member
Gold Supporter
Credits
9,151
If I remember correctly TV started without commercials as well, the internet started without ads then later they saw money in it and more and more advertisement systems were added. The same thing will happen with anything new that they invent to replace the internet, does anyone know if there are advertisements on Tor?
 

KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
internet started without ads
That's not *really* true. There were even ads on the old BBS systems. The first 'spam email' was from DEC in like 1978.

There were far fewer ads. They were usually text. They often were ads for other sites and for things in the off-line world. It wasn't long until the popup was invented. The banner ad has been around forever. A 'web ring' is nothing but an ad for other sites. (Ads can be helpful, as many of those were - 'cause search *really* sucked for quite a while.)
 

f33dm3bits

Gold Member
Gold Supporter
Credits
9,151
That's not *really* true.
The earliest internet access I had when I was still in middle school. I actually don't remember ads from then, I believe you if they were there from the beginning. They must have not been as intrusive as they are now since I don't remember them. More my point being that if something new is invented to create a new open internet companies will eventually ruin it with intrusive ads again and control systems that it becomes closed as it is now again.
 

KGIII

Well-Known Member
Credits
5,376
They must have not been as intrusive as they are now since I don't remember them.
Even BBSes had ads - usually for local services, including things like a local ISP. They had ads for competing BBS services and even unsolicited commercial messages (not so much email back then).

It's kinda like, "Cable was first ad-free!"

No. No, it was not. Cable TV was first just a community that got crappy reception sharing a giant antenna that was in a more advantageous position. It just showed regular TV (ads included) to subscribers.

People have rose-colored glasses when they look at the past.

Ads were absolutely less invasive back then. Then again, the 'net was far smaller back then.

I dug out this link:


(It's a surprisingly good read.)
 


Top