Plebbit is pure peer-to-peer social media protocol, it has no central servers, no global admins, and no way shut down communities-meaning true censorship resistance.
Unlike federated platforms, like lemmy and Mastedon, there are no instances or servers to rely on
this project was created due to wanting to give control of communication and data back to the people.
Plebbit only hosts text. Images from google and other sites can be linked/embedded in posts. This fixes the issue of hosting any nefarious content.
ENS domain are used to name communities.
Plebbit currently offers different UIs. Old reddit UI and new reddit, 4chan, and have a Blog. Plebbit intend to have an app, internet archive, wiki and twitter and Lemmy UI . Choice is important. The backend/communities are shared across clients.
anyone can contribute, build their own client, and shape the ecosystem
Important Links :
Home
App
https://plebbit.com/home#cb2a9c90-6f09-44b2-be03-75f543f9f5aa
FAQ
https://github.com/plebbit/whitepaper/blob/master/FAQ.md
Whitepapers
https://github.com/plebbit/whitepaper
https://github.com/plebbit/whitepaper/discussions/2
Github
https://github.com/plebbit/plebbit-react
https://github.com/plebbit/plebbit-react/releases
I bring this point up every time I see someone pushing the idea of P2P or federated social networks with no moderation and no one has a solution for it yet. Because there isn't a solution.
It's like these people don't even want to look at existing social media with minimal moderation. It doesn't take long on 4chan and other less reputable *chan style sites to see that no matter how much you want to shake off the chains of overbearing moderators, there is a bare minimum moderation necessary for any social media to survive.
Even social media sites on TOR have moderation.
When even the darkest, least moderated cesspools online still have some minimal moderation, it should be a massive neon sign that there needs to be some moderation functionality.
This has been discussed and experimented with to death where such networks existed for a long time. Just because you never heard of them or even knew they exist doesn't mean that they don't.
See Freenet/Hyphanet and the three approaches (local trust, shared user trust lists, web of trust) if you want to learn something. The second one worked out the best from a performance and scalability point of view compared to the third.
Holy shit you cannot be serious. In the shortest possible terms: trust systems are forms of moderation. Anything implementing them would not fall under what I was talking about.
This project doesn't appear to implement that. It doesn't even appear to have a bare minimum way for users to prevent themselves from sharing something they viewed but don't want to share. Viewing something should not imply trust.
Definitely appreciate the assumption that I'm just a dumbass and you've come to shine the light of enlightenment on me though. That my point of view could only be possible to reach through ignorance. That's always nice.
Apologies if I was presumptions and/or my tone was too aggressive.
Quibbling at No Moderation = Bad usually refers to central moderation where "someone" decides for others what they can and can't see without them having any say in the matter.
Bad moderation is an experienced problem at a much larger scale. It in fact was one of the reasons why this very place even exists. And it was one of the reasons why "transparent moderation" was one of the celebrated features of Lemmy with its public
Modlog, although "some" quickly started to dislike that and try to work around it, because power corrupts, and the modern power seeker knows how to moral grandstand while power grabbing.All trust systems give the user the power, by either letting him/her be the sole moderator, or by letting him/her choose moderators (other users) and how much each one of them is trusted and how much weight their judgment carries, or by letting him/her configure more elaborate systems like WoT the way he/she likes.
Please don't, because it is literally the largest place online that openly trades CSAM. Law enforcement even run their own nodes there to try to catch people.
Didn't click on your links. But LEA does this move against any network that may offer anonymization. Don't use Tor hidden services. Don't go near I2P. Stay away from Freenet...etc. This even includes any platform that is seen as not fully under control, like Telegram at some point.
In its essence, this move is no different from "Don't go near Lemmy because it's a Putin-supporting communist platform filled with evil state agents".
Does any network that may offer anonymization (even if misleadingly) attract undesirable people, possibly including flat out criminals? Yes.
Should everyone stay away from all of them because of that? That's up to each individual to decide, preferably after seeing for themselves.
But parroting "think of the children" talking points against individual networks points to either intellectual deficiency, high susceptibility to consent-manufacturing propaganda, or some less innocent explanations.