[Groxx]

But what that means is that the internet goes from being a www.com => globally-identifiable site to everyone having their own version. Links, URIs, Universal Resource Identifiers are no longer universal, and can't be used to reliably direct people around. It could be mitigated by changing the scheme (say: http://version/www.com/), but then every address-reading system on the planet has to be changed to handle it without throwing validation fits.

The average person will not understand this and will simply use whatever comes through automatically. If it doesn't lead them where they expected, they simply turn back. Leaving us back where we started.

Heck, you can already do this: you have a hosts file. Just map www.seized.com to the original IP. As long as the servers are running, it'll still work. The problem comes when traffic drops to zero, ad revenue drops to zero, and the reason for the site's existence is lost. Which is precisely the same problem with running alternatives; the average person, who accounts for most of most site's traffic, will take whatever is served to them and not manage it on their own.

Any system like this would eventually bloat to unmanageable levels, as again, ownership transfers look the same as seizures (or the reverse can be made to be true, with the intent to trick people). Eventually, loads of sites would have tons of alternatives. People could nab the servers / IP addresses of the old ones, and run phishing sites that look like the originals, further degrading the use of any alternative addresses...

... so people will use what's already decided for them. Which is what we have now. The fraction of a fraction of 1% of people who will visit the alternatives will not prevent their eventual death. Only the most popular seized pages will have any chance of continuing to exist... at which point their servers are simply seized along with their domains (where possible. governments cooperating in this is only increasing, and if the ACTA goes through it'll likely become the standard, done automatically, instead of the exception).

---

All of this also relies completely on the internet backbone routers not being manipulated. All it would take is a re-write rule, and any attempts to reach the address are taken out entirely. If a distributed DNS gains traction, do you honestly think this won't become a government's weapon of choice? Those routers exist somewhere.

[joe_the_user]

Hmm,

"But what that means is that the Internet goes from being a www.com => globally-identifiable site to everyone having their own version. Links, URIs, Universal Resource Identifiers are no longer universal, and can't be used to reliably direct people around."

Yeah, it suck the state is breaking the Internet. I don't like it.

We should be clear. We shouldn't claim consider this to be an improvement. We should consider this a counter-measure to something like an act of war on the Internet, which it is.

"The average person will not understand this and will simply use whatever comes through automatically. If it doesn't lead them where they expected, they simply turn back. Leaving us back where we started."

The average user is smarter and smarter. This is something like a war. Normally fat, dumb and happy humans can often sudden exhibit more intelligence in this kind of situation.

Only the most popular seized pages will have any chance of continuing to exist...

The state cares most about these sites too. The state doesn't like actions which dilute it's power. Even when they don't really work, they also make it look bad, which should not be underestimated. Basically, this an electronic form of civil disobedience. And I believe things have come to the point that this might matter.

[Groxx]

>The average user is smarter and smarter.

And relying on more and more complicated tools that run more and more automatically. For example: it seems to me that one of the major reasons password managers (and thus better passwords) are gaining ground is because they're better in every way - you don't need to remember anything. It makes things easier and more automatic, so people use it.

My basic theory on humanity is that people aren't stupid, we're just lazy. And I mean that in a good way; laziness often leads to efficiency. Especially when taken to a global scale, things change when they become easier, not necessarily better.

I don't think we'll agree here though, so I won't debate that point further.

>We should consider this a counter-measure to something like an act of war on the Internet, which it is.

Sadly, yeah, it does seem to legitimately be under attack. From all sides. Something along these lines might work to make a parallel internet, which could be useful, but I don't see it as a solution, so something still needs to be done, and the sooner the better. Why not now?

[joe_the_user]

Humanity is lazy, not stupid, I agree... (surprisingly enough)

Something needs to be done, I agree...

Aside from my web plugin proposal, what would you imagine happening?

(not to discount your other points...)

[Groxx]

I'm not really sure. I need a bit more crypto knowledge & math, and a good chunk of time to brainstorm for it; no solution comes to mind. They're all necessarily bound by that you need to trust at some point; but ease-of-use is paramount in my opinion, if you want to actually change things. No matter what, there are gives and takes.

Browser plugins might be the eventual solution's first steps, though they're more and more becoming sandboxed websites (which I like. Fewer security issues, easier programming, etc), so you'd have to go with something lower-level, which means it's harder to do cross-platform. But that's likely to be the case regardless, unless a single platform wins or virtualized, standard OS APIs become the norm.

All that said, I'm not sure there is a best solution, nor one which I'd actually be happy with. Much less something which works efficiently on a global scale. But I'm essentially a communication-anarchist: I generally think it would be best if anyone, anywhere could privately, anonymously communicate with anyone else. And I realize just what a can of worms that would be.

edit: Just for clarification, as I sometimes come off this way: this is meant in no way to be an attack on the idea / goal / you. And if I'm missing something, I'd love to know. Discussions like these often lead to solutions though, so I enjoy them and end up saying a lot :) I think some of it comes from having both of my siblings in debate teams, and having judged at a few debate competitions; I tend to come off more certain / forceful than I intend.

[joe_the_user]

I'm not particularly defensive here, just fishing for people who'd like to help on the idea - which I came up with right on the thread above.

The thing is, the dns-backtracking-browser-plugin sounds like a simpler and more doable approach compared to anything else I've heard of. Any more elaborate approach would have to settle who owns a domain and that's not any easy thing for the present system.

It would certainly need to be system/browser specific but otherwise doesn't sound hard. Indeed, I could do it in a couple weeks and a really smart person could do it in a day.

Obviously it's a stop-gap. The distributed peer-to-peer client featured here a couple of weeks ago is a far more robust solution. (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1985431). That would include a system fairly similar to what you describe.

[Groxx]

I've been meaning to read through the details on that for a while... guess I'll just have to do it.

But yeah, trackerless-torrents are about the epitome of such a system, though I think it'd have to be changed drastically to support a fast query architecture like DNS-like services need.