From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

There is no privacy

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy


"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> posted:

There is no privacy

in some respects there is more privacy than ever with the advent of tools like nym,
regardless though it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people throw their hands up and
stop fighting then it really is over. blind pessimism helps no one, same with blind
optimism.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 9/17/26 02:53, Keith wrote:

in some respects there is more privacy than ever with the advent of tools like nym,
regardless though it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people throw their hands up and
stop fighting then it really is over. blind pessimism helps no one, same with blind
optimism.

I would argue that's not the case for public activities anymore. Many governments and large companies know where you go at all times as soon
as you step out of the house. Some stores even know if you picked up an
item and then decided it wasn't worth it and put it back. It's gotten
wayyyyyy too invasive.

For anyone still in doubt how far this bs has gone: Equifax, the credit
score company also offers an employee score. They evaluate how likely an employee is to be subservient to low-wages, how likely they are to quit
or be fired, for what reasons and how long they've stayed out of
employment between jobs. This hidden scoring system is perfect to abuse
anyone looking for a job by waiting them out until they accept minimum
wage. It's fully possible that some of the people who cannot get jobs
despite hundreds of applications were simply flagged by an ex-employer
as bad in some way even if it's not necessarily true.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy


"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:

There is no privacy

What do you think we should do?
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2026-09-19 4:51 a.m., Librarian2025 wrote:

"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:

There is no privacy

What do you think we should do?

We should build it, of course.

I am working on a non-usenet NNTP-based design that provides:

- a reasonably-strong degree of cryptographic assurance that the person
you're talking to is not an LLM or Chinese sockpuppet
- end-to-end encryption
- pseudonymity and partial anonymity (depending on how many degrees away
you are from a given person)


Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a planet-scale/global/reddit-sized community that offers true anonymity.
Instead I'm aiming for a solution that works for small/medium sized communities with the intent that people will self host like in the
good/bad ol' days of phpbb forums.

--

Also we should build the privacy-as-a-service room from Neuromancer.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 9/21/26 00:03, Stack Ghost wrote:

Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a planet-scale/ global/reddit-sized community that offers true anonymity. Instead I'm
aiming for a solution that works for small/medium sized communities with
the intent that people will self host like in the good/bad ol' days of
phpbb forums.

Honestly that's probably for the best. The less people involved, the
less attention gets brought up and the less governments/companies try to
fuck with it. See: all the recent attention being brought upon the
GrapheneOS airport story making govs take a harsher stance against it.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2026-09-22 4:29 p.m., Mochanics wrote:

On 9/21/26 00:03, Stack Ghost wrote:

Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a planet-scale/
global/reddit-sized community that offers true anonymity. Instead I'm
aiming for a solution that works for small/medium sized communities
with the intent that people will self host like in the good/bad ol'
days of phpbb forums.

Honestly that's probably for the best. The less people involved, the
less attention gets brought up and the less governments/companies try to fuck with it. See: all the recent attention being brought upon the GrapheneOS airport story making govs take a harsher stance against it.

I agree. I think centralization/agglomeration around a small number of platforms (reddit, twitter, fb/insta, discord, etc.) has been materially harmful.
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy


Stack Ghost <stackghost@correct.opinions> writes:

On 2026-09-19 4:51 a.m., Librarian2025 wrote:

"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:

There is no privacy

What do you think we should do?

We should build it, of course.

I am working on a non-usenet NNTP-based design that provides:

- a reasonably-strong degree of cryptographic assurance that the
person you're talking to is not an LLM or Chinese sockpuppet
- end-to-end encryption
- pseudonymity and partial anonymity (depending on how many degrees
away you are from a given person)

Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a planet-scale/global/reddit-sized community that offers true
anonymity. Instead I'm aiming for a solution that works for
small/medium sized communities with the intent that people will self
host like in the good/bad ol' days of phpbb forums.

I hope you'll keep us updated.

Also, you have to keep in mind that most people tend to use what is
easier to use. That's why there are quite a lot of communities around,
let's say, subreddits and Telegram channels, even though free and
open-source alternatives exist. No matter how many truly anonymous
messengers there are, people tend to use questionable Telegram just
because it's very polished and easy-to-use product with fast and
intuitive interface.

But yeah, I do believe that it's the time people should start forming self-hosted communities.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

Librarian2025 tales:

Stack Ghost <stackghost@correct.opinions> writes:

On 2026-09-19 4:51 a.m., Librarian2025 wrote:

"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:

There is no privacy

What do you think we should do?

We should build it, of course.

I am working on a non-usenet NNTP-based design that provides:

- a reasonably-strong degree of cryptographic assurance that the
person you're talking to is not an LLM or Chinese sockpuppet
- end-to-end encryption
- pseudonymity and partial anonymity (depending on how many degrees
away you are from a given person)

Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a planet-scale/global/reddit-sized community that offers true
anonymity. Instead I'm aiming for a solution that works for
small/medium sized communities with the intent that people will self
host like in the good/bad ol' days of phpbb forums.

I hope you'll keep us updated.

Also, you have to keep in mind that most people tend to use what is
easier to use. That's why there are quite a lot of communities around,
let's say, subreddits and Telegram channels, even though free and
open-source alternatives exist. No matter how many truly anonymous
messengers there are, people tend to use questionable Telegram just
because it's very polished and easy-to-use product with fast and
intuitive interface.

But yeah, I do believe that it's the time people should start forming self-hosted communities.

Telegram as WhatsApp has a dominant position in the market, PlayStore
and billions of users.

Telegram is as easy as irc might be.
--
creeping death
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.privacy

On 2026-09-23 8:30 a.m., Librarian2025 wrote:

Stack Ghost <stackghost@correct.opinions> writes:

On 2026-09-19 4:51 a.m., Librarian2025 wrote:

"Ethan ethan<AT>none<DOT>invalid" <nospam@invalid.invalid> writes:

There is no privacy

What do you think we should do?

We should build it, of course.

I am working on a non-usenet NNTP-based design that provides:

- a reasonably-strong degree of cryptographic assurance that the
person you're talking to is not an LLM or Chinese sockpuppet
- end-to-end encryption
- pseudonymity and partial anonymity (depending on how many degrees
away you are from a given person)


Unfortunately I don't think it's feasible to build a
planet-scale/global/reddit-sized community that offers true
anonymity. Instead I'm aiming for a solution that works for
small/medium sized communities with the intent that people will self
host like in the good/bad ol' days of phpbb forums.

I hope you'll keep us updated.

I certainly plan to.

Also, you have to keep in mind that most people tend to use what is
easier to use. That's why there are quite a lot of communities around,
let's say, subreddits and Telegram channels, even though free and
open-source alternatives exist. No matter how many truly anonymous
messengers there are, people tend to use questionable Telegram just
because it's very polished and easy-to-use product with fast and
intuitive interface.

But yeah, I do believe that it's the time people should start forming self-hosted communities.

Yes, reddit and dicksword got popular because it was easier than running
a phpbb forum, or an irc channel + vent/teamspeak. Slick interfaces,
work well on mobile. Normies with no technical expertise can run their
own discord "server".

Maybe I'm not imaginative enough but I can't think of a way to keep any
future competitor just as user-friendly without centralizing it.
However I think the pendulum is starting to swing the other way and
people are realizing the benefits of self-hosting and decentralization.

I'm not ready to demo it yet but I'll post here and probably do a Show HN
--- Synchronet 3.21e-Win32 NewsLink 1.2