anonplus: new, uncensored social network coming soon?

[superboyac]

I just read this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8645293/Anonymous-hacktivists-plan-Google-alternative.html

An uncensored social network?  I wouldn't mind at all.  The only problem I really see is that most people will probably not want to use a "hackers" tool instead of facebook or google+.  It's not like your mom is going to switch from facebook to anonplus.

But...I like the idea very much.  Sort of the Linux of social networks.  No advertising, no crazy layouts or anything.  We'll see, I'll be interested.  I hate facebook not because I feel "too cool" for it but I find the interface really really annoying.  It's just too much.  I haven't tried google+, but google's app never really hit a home run with me.  They are always pretty good and of top quality, just never makes me too excited.  I like gmail the best, of course, but even that, I don't get the boner everyone else gets with it.  I have a feeling that my mind just doesn't work the way google models things, even though it seems to resonate very well with a lot of people.

Ah...I probably won't use any of these things, come to think about it.  I never have.  I went through the same thing with every new communication technology.  I use it a lot in the beginning, then it quickly dies.

[Stoic Joker]

So... 4chan is going mainstream? Or are they going for a middle ground of some kind?

*Shrug* I came from the buck-the-system generation, so I'm ok with it either way.

Should be fun to watch. Seeing them piss-off Orlando certainly has been.

[superboyac]

4chan...ugh...see, that's the problem with anarchy.  I love the idea of it, but I hate the ugliness that results.  yet another indication that I'm an irrational idealist.

[Stoic Joker]

4chan...ugh...see, that's the problem with anarchy.

Hay, (bright side to the unfiltered version) at least there is no need to wonder what they really meant.

If it was just a bit more articulate, it might catch on.

[40hz]

Interesting idea. But the real censorship that's coming down the pike is of the "voluntary" and "cooperative" variety. And it will be the ISPs rather than the social networks that will be doing it after being "encouraged" to take on more "responsibility" by several governments.

So whether you're social site is on FB or G+, or it's hosted on some decentralized P2P system going through an onion router, it's only a matter of time before it can be identified and shut down. Because the backbone and conduits are provided by governments and corporations.

Many people assume there's nothing that can be done to effectively stop hackers. And while that may be semi-true with the Internet the way it's currently implemented, there's nothing to say this particular version of the Internet will be the one we all end up using ten years from now. Either way, it's a sure bet tomorrow's Internet will be nowhere near as open (by design and law) as our current one is.

At best, Anonymous' social network will be a temporary stopgap unless Anonymous starts stringing its own fiber and putting up its own satellites. (Oh! Do they know you need a government issued license to do that?   )

[Stoic Joker]

Interesting idea. But the real censorship that's coming down the pike is of the "voluntary" and "cooperative" variety. And it will be the ISPs rather than the social networks that will be doing it after being "encouraged" to take on more "responsibility" by several governments.

There is no such thing as a pick-proof lock. The "system" can squeeze out much of the public, true. but there will always be exploitable back channels available to those willing to take the time to know.

Many people assume there's nothing that can be done to effectively stop hackers. And while that may be semi-true with the Internet the way it's currently implemented, there's nothing to say this particular version of the Internet will be the one we all end up using ten years from now. Either way, it's a sure bet tomorrow's Internet will be nowhere near as open (by design and law) as our current one is.

Hacker is a way of looking at things, of perceiving "problems" or obstacles simply as a challenge (and not a barrier). It is not something that can be "fixed"...or stopped. The carrot of "stopping" evil people, dangled before the masses will be the platform used to push much of this (completely bogus IMO) legislation down the public's collective throat. But it will be to no avail.

The biggest danger users face on the internet today (wrt their computer's "health") is marketing companies, not hackers. So if "the grip" gets "tightened" it will simply be shoving there slimy (demographic pulse checking) fingers farther up the public collective ass of the consumer.

[superboyac]

Interesting idea. But the real censorship that's coming down the pike is of the "voluntary" and "cooperative" variety. And it will be the ISPs rather than the social networks that will be doing it after being "encouraged" to take on more "responsibility" by several governments.

So whether you're social site is on FB or G+, or it's hosted on some decentralized P2P system going through an onion router, it's only a matter of time before it can be identified and shut down. Because the backbone and conduits are provided by governments and corporations.

Many people assume there's nothing that can be done to effectively stop hackers. And while that may be semi-true with the Internet the way it's currently implemented, there's nothing to say this particular version of the Internet will be the one we all end up using ten years from now. Either way, it's a sure bet tomorrow's Internet will be nowhere near as open (by design and law) as our current one is.

At best, Anonymous' social network will be a temporary stopgap unless Anonymous starts stringing its own fiber and putting up its own satellites. (Oh! Do they know you need a government issued license to do that?  )

Very true.  This is a point that I often overlook.  What do you think the future of internet might be?  It's true, right now it's just a free for all once you're connected.  As long as you pay your ISP, you are in more or less.  We take all that infrastructure for granted.  And internet infrastructure is a weird one.  How can you effectively control and restrict such a thing?  It's really a crazy thing if you really think about it.  it's not like electricity, water, or gas.  It's closest to electricity in that it's somewhat abstract and intangible, but even more so.  But what's really weird about the internet is that it carries data...it's not really supplying some tangible good necessary for life.  It's information!  So trying to control it like electricity won't really work because you run into all sorts of complicated privacy issues.  It's the main complaint against Google's operations.  I'm dealing with a project now to collect data from electric vehicles and charging stations, and there are big hangups and dilemmas associated with how to get certain information while keeping the ID's and stuff anonymous.  It's something that was not really encountered with other utilities historically, I don't think.

Seriously, curious what your  thoughts are...

[Tuxman]

While we're at 4chan: LulzSec is back ... 

That said, the only social network you can trust in is one you administer on your own servers. (Like installing Diaspora or whatever.)

[superboyac]

While we're at 4chan: LulzSec is back ... 

That said, the only social network you can trust in is one you administer on your own servers. (Like installing Diaspora or whatever.)

That's a good point.  i would love to setup my own social network.  What's a good CLOUD-LESS software for that?

[Tuxman]

Hmm, is Diaspora cloud-based? I thought they could run independently.

[superboyac]

Hmm, is Diaspora cloud-based? I thought they could run independently.

it can, I'm just looking for other alternatives.  I quickly shy away from stuff like this when the installation process requires a bunch of command line stuff.  Give me a GUI, please.  And it's not the GUI that I'm directly concerned about.  It's more the design philosophy.  All you programmers like to design great stuff that can do great things, but it just sort of stops being developed once the functionality is there.  Hardly anyone spends good time on GUI and buttons, checkboxes, etc.  Then Apple comes in and does the opposite, makes tons of money, and the others complain.  Sorry, short rant...

[Tuxman]

... so that's why Ping is a whole success.

[Jimdoria]

Well, I love to be paranoid about government and corporate snoops as much as the next guy, but unless they're going to start preventing encrypted connections (which would require substantial portions of the Internet to be re-written from scratch) I don't see how they're going to "identify and shut down" every non-sanctioned activity. Just sounds like scare mongering to me.

There's always RetroShare for people who want to cuddle up virtually with their friends without leaving traces all over some evil entity's server.

[40hz]

Well, I love to be paranoid about government and corporate snoops as much as the next guy, but unless they're going to start preventing encrypted connections (which would require substantial portions of the Internet to be re-written from scratch) I don't see how they're going to "identify and shut down" every non-sanctioned activity. Just sounds like scare mongering to me.

Oh...I don't think it's paranoia at all. I think it's more an acknowledgement of just how much the world has changed in the last 10 years. Stopping things and identifying troublemakers is only an insurmountable challenge for governments if they are required to play by generally accepted rules and obey their own laws.

You can no longer count on any government to do either if it feels seriously threatened.

Ultima Ratio Regum as the barrels of King Louis XIV's cannon said.

[rgdot]

You have to take into account one thing though, we live in an age where people can influence things, to a point any way...before you laugh at me...
From simple voting (US for example) to masses in the streets (Egypt) and to breaking down walls (Germany) people can produce change. The problem is how much people follow through and make sure the change is for the better AND remains for the better.

That's why I am not a critic of governments as much as I am a critic of those who allow it to be what it is...the voters. Even massive corporate influence can be succumbed if the voters see to it.

[kyrathaba]

Agree with rgdot.  Also, apathy is the worst enemy of the common weal.  People as a whole are tremendously apathetic, and willing to tolerate an absurd level of B.S. from [employers, governments, insert others here...] If it weren't for this chronic apathy, we'd have seen real change in the U.S. by now.  Even I am a hypocrite, because although I recognize this truth intellectually, and am posting about it here, I haven't done anything constructive about it.  I can't even say that I vote in every election.