Re: the plutocratic world of freenet

Juiceman ha scritto:
> Yes and (mostly) no.  Having many nodes/servers/clusters and pushing
> and pulling the data you want will have a small effect on the network,
> but generally speaking the more popular the requested data is, the
> more places it resides.  Thus if you have 10 nodes/servers/clusters
> pushing and pulling the content you want, but 100's of other people
> are requesting different content, the more requested content would
> win.

Well, It would be so if the other 100 other requesters weren't human. If 
you have a single machine iteratively requesting content, 24h a day, it 
will generate much more traffic that what can produce 100 (or 10000) 
regular surfing humans.
A human will request the content 1 time, or 2. 10000 humans will request 
max 10.000 times, max 20.000. A single powerful machine can simulate 
well such a traffic!

> Also please note that content would be divided across the network
> based on hash of said content and routing done by the network.  So to
> replace someone else's content on a node you would also need to find
> content with a very close hash to that of the other person's content
> (not entirely easy)  AND make sure to request it more than the other
> content AND control a majority of the routes for that data hash.  Even
> then after expending great effort and resources you probably wont
> entirely succeed...

That would be true if there where only one or few auto-requester robots 
(ARR). But if governments, politicians, corporations etc... will 
discover a new audience in freenet, they will not think two times about 
setting up ARRs.

Each ARR that comes into freenet, will decrease the time non-ARR content 
can stay in the network, and increase the time it will need to spread 
itself.

The same effect is due to popular files. Suppose there where many big 
and very popular files around the network.  A publisher will see that 
his content is very slow, and has a limited permanence, compared to the 
popular files. So he say: "my file will difficultly become popular if it 
is so slow and uncertain compared to popular ones. let's set up an ARR 
so users will gain speed and my content will have a granted permanence 
and integrity".

Imagine a freenet where each, *EACH* publisher auto-requests its content 
at minimum 100.000 times a day with a costly server. It's obvious that 
between them they have approximatively the same impact on the net, so 
they have the same "right to speek".
But a poor publisher, without a costly ARR, will never be able to spread 
its content. Because the "limit of popularity" is too high. The time to 
get it would be so enormous from a user, that many will give up, not 
raising popularity.  The minimum requirement to have a decent 
reachability and permanence it would be 100.000rqs/day or little less...

That's nothing new.
It's the same as in real democracy.
It has always been very very difficult to combine free speach, right to 
listen, and MONEY.

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe