[simoncion]

Then, what were you suggesting?

The Decentralized Internet already exists: Mastodon, Tor, IPFS, (gasp) self-hosting, etc, etc, etc, provide the data delivery side and very few things are stopping you from hosting your own splinter DNS servers (or using one of the more-widely-used alternative nameservers) for the name resolution side.

Thing is, despite the fact that that all that (or functionally identical implementations of the same idea) has been around for decades, very, very few people use them.

[DEADMINCE]

> Then, what were you suggesting?

Honestly, I think it was clear. What's your next best guess after the other users'?

> The Decentralized Internet already exists

In a very alpha stage version, sure. It's currently fragmented, unstable, slow, has limited services and can still be interfered with.

I want something significantly closer to the 'normal' internet, but with a greater capacity for redundancy, privacy and anonymity. This is absolutely possible, inevitable even, but also quite a long ways away.

[simoncion]

> Honestly, I think it was clear.

It wasn't. What were you suggesting?

> In a very alpha stage version, sure.

It has been like this for twenty-five years. I know this because I've been playing around with these tools for that long.

That these tools just haven't got much better over the last *quarter century* suggests that either really solving the problem is effectively impossible, or that solving it isn't actually worth the effort, given that someone with a $2 pipe wrench can nearly always extract security-relevant encryption material from a knowledgeable insider.

> I want something significantly closer to the 'normal' internet, but with a greater capacity for redundancy, privacy and anonymity.

You need to learn how the Internet works. It is (and always has been) a federated, distributed system, even back when it was known as the ARPANET. These days, usually-larger-than-end-user (but not always) participants in the Internet run one or more Autonomous Systems, and negotiate connection agreements (often called "Peering" or "Transit" agreements) to interconnect their Autonomous Systems with others.

You want privacy? Get service from operators that only interconnect with other operators that refuse to use their god-like powers of observation to deanonymize your traffic.

[benterix]

> inevitable even

I think the opposite is inevitable: even if you create another incarnation of Tor with better speed and so on, you can bet sooner or later the government will find ways to infiltrate it, just like they did with the current version.

[DEADMINCE]

Infiltrate, sure, but not control.

[exe34]

> It's currently fragmented, unstable, slow, has limited services and can still be interfered with.

what we really need is a law that makes it stable, fast and force services to be available, without government interference.

[DEADMINCE]

I agree that would be fantastic, but I would like something with protection against interference baked into the design, rather than having to rely on goodwill.

[DarkNova6]

> Honestly, I think it was clear. What's your next best guess after the other users'?

Sorry but if it would be clear, there wouldn’t be so many commentators asking about it.

[DEADMINCE]

One comment made an unreasonable assumption/interpretation, and the commentators are talking about that.

I would think most people reading it understand it just fine but don't have a reason to leave a comment.