Decentralized social network Mastodon says it can’t comply with Mississippi’s age verification law — the same law that saw rival Bluesky pull out of the state — because it doesn’t have the means to do so.

The social non-profit explains that Mastodon doesn’t track its users, which makes it difficult to enforce such legislation. Nor does it want to use IP address-based blocks, as those would unfairly impact people who were traveling, it says.

  • hisao@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is why it’s perfect time to get some tech literacy regarding tor, i2p, yggdrasil, and shadowsocks. It’s not perfect solution to use tech to circumvent restrictions that shouldn’t be there in the first place, but sometimes it really comes to that point and it’s really nice to have all systems ready!

    • ezyryder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’m making a website to aggregate all of this information. Pro net neutrality, anti censorship laymens guide. Still in the works but its called zoracle.life.

      • apftwb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        Confirm your URL? Domain is registered but not linking back to a website.

        • ezyryder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          it’s still in the works friend!! Making the whole thing from scratch with some cameron’s world esque aesthetics and a unique landing page. I can definitely let you know when its live :) appreciate the interest.

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Arguably though, at some point they’ll just say “if we can’t read your traffic, you can’t use the Internet.”

      Which still isn’t a problem, as I’m sure we can come up with a means to encrypt traffic to make it look entirely legitimate. But it’s going to take a while.

      • einlander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        ·
        1 day ago

        At that point people would probably go to a p2p adhoc wireless meshnet to bypass the ISPs entirely.

          • sexy_peach@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            40
            ·
            1 day ago

            “People” will just comply. Tech savvy people like us are the only ones that could circumvent it

            • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              22 hours ago

              Except if the topic is wifi meshnets, no amount of tech savvyness will get you around an absence of other nodes nearby. General apathy is actually a huge problem here.

              • sexy_peach@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                So what do you propose? People who aren’t able should set up nodes?

                Also if wifi mesh is our last hope, oof

                I say that as a freifunk participant

                • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 hours ago

                  Also if wifi mesh is our last hope, oof

                  Yeah. What I propose is getting more people involved and caring about freedom preserving technologies before it gets to that point. A tiny minority of somewhat more tech literate people are not going to be magically immune to authoritarian checkmate scenarios through technical solutions alone.

                  • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

                    For the last 20+ years, I’ve been trying to get people to understand the point of free and open formats with pretty much zero success. For the most, they just don’t care if somebody else owns all they data. Maybe if something really bad was to happen to them or a loved one as a result, they’d change their mind. Then I’d get to tell them “that’s what I’ve been telling you for literally decades”, but what would be the point?

                    Not technical people will never get it.

              • Sl00k@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                I used to think about this via mesh networks as simply routers, but now with nostr, IPFS, atProto and that new BT messaging stuff Jack Dorsey is on. Technically you could utilize your phone as an access point to the mesh network as you move around the city and load all the comms in the background. The latency would be high, but it could work. Also with 5g tech nowadays long range mesh networks are much more feasible albeit probably expensive for a hobbyist.

                • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  Are there now legal means to do longer range communications? I thought the main limitation was you need to be licensed to do anything more than short range home wifi

                  • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    I mean it’s all licensed by the frequency and antenna transmit power, so long distance is possible with the right choice of protocol, antenna and frequency you can get a surprisingly long distance with unlicensed spectrum. Ubiquity makes some directional antenna for wirelessly connecting 2 sites that operate in the 2.4 and 5ghz ranges that can connect over distances of multiple kilometers

            • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              One… Not so disappointing fact is that means at least the Internet will go back to the pre-social media era.

              You can feel it here on Lemmy still. It exists.

            • cyborganism@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Except we’ll have to keep using it because the rest of our families and friends are going to still be on there or pester us about why we aren’t there with them to share photos of your sister-in-law’s baby photos and videos and your aunt Tammy’s vacation photos.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Sneakernets, my friend. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a pocket full of microsd cards traveling on the subway.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Flash drives of banned foreign films are the one method of accessing foreign media that north Koreans realistically have. It’s extremely hard to prevent people plugging a flash drive into their computer in their home to view some media

            • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              16 hours ago

              That’s why I find systems designed for high latency by being “offline-first” interesting. Sync large quantities of information when you can, then consume offline. Like Usenet and email used to be. Most things don’t actually need to be “instant”.

        • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I don’t know literally ANYTHING, so take that into account when answering this, but why can’t a single person access the “Internet” on their own, without an ISP. Can’t they be their own ISP? Or can’t small groups of people - friends, family, co-conspirators - create their own private ISP?

          • Russ@bitforged.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The p2p meshnet that they were referring to basically is a local/small group ISP.

            As for why a single person cannot (effectively) become their own ISP? It’s complicated. Really complicated. ISPs have to pay other ISPs just like you and I do, unless they’re a Tier-1 ISP/Network. Otherwise you’re always going to be paying to connect to (and generally paying for bandwidth) another network that has access to a network that then has access to a T1 network. T1s are basically the largest networks that hold (or can directly access) the majority of people on the internet. Top of the food chain, so to speak.

            So in theory, yeah, you can become your own ISP - but you’ll still need to pay and be at the mercy of other ISPs. Datacenters are typically their own ISP, but they have to pay others to get online just like we do.

          • rollin@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            23 hours ago

            this is what the mesh networks are that people have mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

            It is theoretically possible to create a purely peer-to-peer network where each individual connects to people nearby, and then any individual can in theory communicate with any other, by passing data packets to nearby people on the network who then pass it on themselves until it reaches the other person.

            You can probably already grasp a few of the issues here - confidentiality is a big one, and reliability is another. But in theory it could work, and the more people who take part in such networks, the more reliable they become.

            • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              But can they only access each other in their own “web?” Can they access the World-Wide Web on their private web? Or does that just expose them to all the other stuff anyway?

              • rollin@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                23 hours ago

                You can have nodes on a mesh network which act as gateways to the internet, but such nodes are going to have to go through an ISP. There’s no other way to connect to the internet at large unfortunately.

          • tyler@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Imagine the internet is a network of roads. The ISPs in some parts of town control the roads, in other parts they only control the stop lights. You can build your own road through private land to avoid the stop lights but it’s expensive. The isps can put traffic cops at the stop lights and monitor and stop you if they want. The only way to get around it is to build a road all the way to the destination.

          • turmoil@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            23 hours ago

            To some degree you could, but you’d either rely on Tier1 transits to access the entire internet (costly), or you’d use IXPs (keeping your traffic local to other IX participants).

            This doesn’t account for how’d you’d actually go into purchasing a port for your residential home, which would probably entail laying your own fiber to a data center nearby.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          All they have to do is send a few crews with log dipoles or yagis. Take a few operators down and charge them with terrorism or something and a critical mass will stop using it.

          We have the tech for drones sweeping everything everywhere with sensors. Cameras, radios, microphones, IR…

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            18 hours ago

            At some point you’re just going to need to start shooting the fascists

        • TeddE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Like Metastatic on LoRA?

          Or maybe we’ll use software defined radios (SDR) to transmit on other unregulated bands (as a hacker, you can often force the software to believe it’s in the wrong region to transmit on bands the FTC didn’t approve, as long as it’s legal somewhere.)

          • errer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Meshtastic will never replicate anything like the modern internet. It’s slower than 1980s dialup data speeds. Text messaging, maybe…but you ain’t sending a video through it, that’s for sure.

          • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            I didn’t know there were unregulated bands. I thought pretty much everything except 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz required licensing and those two were technically unlicensed, but still regulated.

            • TeddE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              What’s in a name? Legally speaking, your brain and nervous system would be classified as an ‘unintentional radiator’ (MRIs work because of this fact) and as such would fall under regulated devices if we weren’t legal persons.

              I used ‘unregulated’ (errantly if you insist) to mean both unlicensed and also use cases where FCC isn’t actively enforcing the regulations on the books, cause technically virtually everything is ‘regulated’.

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        If you mean an HTTPS ban, it’s technically possible, but even mainland China and Russia haven’t gone that far. One major reason is that it would completely undermine basic internet security. It would instantly make man-in-the-middle attacks trivial, letting anyone sniff purchases, transactions, and more. Buying anything online - or using a credit card at all - would suddenly become extremely risky.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I’ve tried a few times to check out i2p, it seems to take hours of leaving it running to even get to the point where you can very slowly and inconsistently load even the official pages though.

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        In my experience, if you have anything but “Network: OK” status (for example, “Network: Firewalled”), it’s not working properly. If you’re behind a VPN, you need to port-forward and properly configure a port in I2P config/settings. Another sign that it’s misconfigured is 0 participating tunnels. This is how properly configured I2P network statistics looks like with high internet bandwidth:

        spoiler

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Thanks. Somehow the network actually seems to be working pretty well for me now, not sure why it wasn’t before.

          • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            sometimes routers go offline before their routing commitments expire (12 minutes). maybe all your HTTP proxy tunnels got disconnected. Increasing the backup tunnel count could help

    • FailBetter@crust.piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The situation does seem quite desperate. I’d like to heed your call. Please advise on most critical systems I should have ready right now today please. I know have a lot of work to do and must stay efficient

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        22 hours ago
        • If the internet were fully controlled, you’d need mesh networks - DIY, decentralized networks using radios, local connections, or other alternative infrastructures. I don’t know all the details, but Yggdrasil is a promising modern project that functions as an alternative “internet” for mesh networks, while also working over the regular internet.

        • Within the normal internet, the most resilient solution against heavy censorship is probably Shadowsocks. It’s widely used in mainland China because it can bypass full-scale DPI (deep packet inspection) by making traffic look like normal HTTPS. There are ways for authorities to detect it, and there are counter-methods, but it remains one of the most reliable tools for evading state-level traffic filtering.

        • Next in line are Tor and I2P. Both are very resilient, and blocking them completely is difficult. It’s a continuous cat-and-mouse game: governments block some bridges or entry nodes, but new ones appear, allowing users to reconnect.

        • Finally, regular VPNs are useful but generally less resilient. They’re the first target for legal restrictions and DPI filtering because their traffic patterns are easier to detect.


        Overall, for deep censorship resistance, it’s a hierarchy: mesh networks > Shadowsocks > Tor/I2P > standard VPNs. You can ask chatbots about any of these and usually get accurate, practical advice because the technical principles are public knowledge.

        • DFX4509B@lemmy.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Couldn’t the US hypothetically put a clause in some ‘online safety’ law conveniently deanonymizing Tor given they own most of the exit nodes?

          • hisao@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Owning a lot of Tor exit nodes doesn’t automatically deanonymize users. Exit nodes only see the traffic as it leaves Tor toward the clearnet, not the original sender. To actually identify someone, you’d need to match their traffic entering the network with the traffic exiting - a correlation attack - which requires visibility on both ends. The US doesn’t “own most exits” either; the network is run by many independent operators, and the Tor community actively monitors for malicious relays. Even if a law forced US exit operators to log everything, that alone wouldn’t deanonymize anyone unless combined with large-scale surveillance of entry traffic, which is extremely resource-intensive and not guaranteed to work. In practice, governments can make running exits legally risky, but they can’t just legislate Tor anonymity away.

            • ezyryder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Governments also need regular users on Tor for it to function properly, otherwise it becomes easier to track down who is targeting you, most likely another government if they are the only ones with “legal” access.

    • Mose13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I have absolutely no idea what any of that is after tor. I have heard of i2p but I forget

      • hisao@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago
        • Tor is optimized for accessing the regular internet anonymously. It uses onion routing with a small number of long-lived relays, and you exit back to the clearnet through an exit node. Hidden services (now called onion services) exist, but they’re secondary to Tor’s main use case.
        • I2P is designed primarily for internal services (called eepsites, torrents, chat, etc.) inside the I2P network itself. It doesn’t rely on exits the way Tor does. It uses garlic routing (a variant of onion routing with bundled messages), and every participant is both a client and a router, making it more peer-to-peer.
      • other_cat@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Me either, so I’m searching up what I can and bookmarking it to read later. There’s always more to learn!