Conversation

Notices

1. INACTIVE (deadsuperhero@social.nasqueron.org)'s status on Sunday, 08-Oct-2017 23:37:33 EDT INACTIVE

   The Federated Web is not The Dark Web, but you know, some idiot journalist will eventually conflate the two terms.

   1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Sunday, 08-Oct-2017 23:38:38 EDT kaniini

      in reply to

      @deadsuperhero but what if somebody sets up a mastodon on the TOR network. what then, huh?!

      1. INACTIVE (deadsuperhero@social.nasqueron.org)'s status on Sunday, 08-Oct-2017 23:48:47 EDT INACTIVE

         in reply to

         @kaniini But not all of the federated web is using TOR, nor is all of The Dark Web using federated communication apps.

      2. Tobias (tobias@social.diekershoff.de)'s status on Monday, 09-Oct-2017 00:51:24 EDT Tobias

         in reply to
         @kaniini @deadsuperhero It may be problematic to get a Tor node into the federated web as other nodes don't understand onion addresses, so most likely it wont be part of it. And even if it does, that would be the a small overlap between the two labels.
         1. INACTIVE (deadsuperhero@social.nasqueron.org)'s status on Monday, 09-Oct-2017 01:07:57 EDT INACTIVE

            in reply to

            @tobias @kaniini It'd be interesting to see a truly p2p-client style approach to federated networking (on the desktop or mobile end, without the need for a server at all)

            There have been a few recent approaches to the problem. Scuttlebutt approached it in a fairly novel way by assuming that data connections probably aren't persistent, and would rely on an alternate mechanism for fetching and storing updates to data.