@cwebber one day gnunet's gns will solve this...

@cwebber maybe this will finally show people why DNSSEC isn't exactly a workable replacement for the mess that is the current PKI either ^^'

@cwebber For those in the networking space or otherwise interested, there was a recent E-Mail thread in the NANOG (North American Network Operators' Group) with the subject of "New DNS vulnerability: political overreach" containing discussion on US government interference with the Internet.

https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/thread/55UTA3Q4NIN5455KV7TAY7YTMC7ZUENI/

The list is moderated but open to all.

@cwebber sorry to bother you but is there sauce on their domain names being revoked? I know it was expected but I wasn't clear if it was confirmed. Maybe the story is moving too fast and I just need to wait for more details.

@cwebber DNS is "decentralized" because if one server removes a domain name, you can just use another one that still has it. However this is not at all how DNSs are operated in reality & it is completely centralized. There are a few alternative DNS networks, but those are also centralized!

What are people getting confused about here, the acronym? The "D" stands for "domain", not "decentralized".

@cwebber Yup. “Distributed” != “decentralized.”

@cwebber

well DNS is decentralized. It's just not peer-to-peer. There is an important difference there.

DNS is split across countless organisations each responsible for different parts of it. It is sharded and thereby decentralized by definition. It however is also hierarchical and thereby authoritarian by definition too.

What many people (and you probably too I assume) mean when they're talking about decentralized is being the opposite of authoritarian I.E. Libertarian...

@cwebber Correct me if I am wrong, but the numeric internet address (www.xxx.yyy.zzz) is probably still accesible?

@cwebber I agree. Someone recently circulated a list of TLDs that didn't have an ICANN connection, and it's like 15-20 country-based domains. I went and looked at dotMeow, which I supported, and they're based in Belgium. But, no, they're going to be an ICANN registered domain. Still a worthy cause, but that's a shame. So much of the Internet has been built on trusting the US. Few people built contingencies for this breach of trust.

@cwebber well, DNS is decentralised….its just that the governance isn’t 😬

@cwebber shoot,time to move my domain off off Nazi control I suppose.

@cwebber truly fuck DNS

@cwebber Noblogs.org blogs gives a timeout right now but the subdomain cavalette (which looks like a sort of status page and way to communicate with all their very many users) is still up.

https://cavallette.noblogs.org/

And https://www.inventati.org/ is also up.

Please edit your post. By pointing people to archive.org (who removed posts related to the Amnesty UK report story) you're not giving people the option to check out other links and older or newer posts on https://cavallette.noblogs.org/

Thanks in advance

@cwebber Not all of them - https://www.inventati.org is still up, but https://www.autistici.org is gone

@cwebber petnames when? ;-)

@cwebber
DNS is so centralised that neither the “D” nor “DD” in “DDNS” don't stand for “decentralised” \s

It was more decentralised when you manually passed `/etc/hosts` around.

@cwebber stares at the entire ActivityPub network having a huge dependence on fucking domain names

@cwebber We have a global communications network, many fundamental aspects of which are controlled by the US federal government. There has been concern over this in the past, but past administrations have had the good sense of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What we have now is not best described as an administration, but a fascist regime, one which has rapidly moved to use every possible lever to extort other countries into doing what it wants, up to and including unprovoked war.

@cwebber I'm all for setting up alternate roots and also supporting smarter DNS resolvers like unwind in more places. (I still resolve that domain just fine but it's not clear if it's unwind hitting something with a longer ttl somewhere or a nuance in how it was "revoked")

@cwebber wait why do they tell you this

@avandeursen Ik denk het wel, maar heb er nog niet op bij kunnen lezen helaas. Eerst de Meta schikking. Dank voor het doorgeven.