From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search is down[edit]

external links may need to be updated. news about the current development, as well.

Freenet content[edit]

Just some random feedback here. I hope this is the right spot...

I was reading the article and the major heading 'Technical design' mentions 'darknet' and 'opennet' several times. These are not concepts that I, a random article reader, understood. I was pleased to discover a discussion of these concepts in a subsequent major heading, but had to reread 'Technical design.' This makes is fairly clear to me that the 'Darknet versus Opennet' heading should be above 'Technical design,' so rereading is not required. I didn't want to change it right away, but if someone doesn't tell me otherwise, I plan on changing things around within a few weeks.

Meson537 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Freenet actually -is- being used for child porn? I admit, reading the faqs page, as noted in the criticism dicussions below, basically says that if you use freenet, your computer will have child porn on it, regardless of whether you want it to or not. Which is rather disturbing, but...I have a hard time believing that could actually be the case, because I'm a naive idealist, but I'm -certainly- not willing to download the program to find out. Regardless of its potentials...what bad things is this program being used for right now? And why is that just on the talk page and not in the actual article? Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just seems to be a fact that there is no censorship of any kind in the freenet, so any content could be there or not be there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In the past Freenet featured one or more (I don't remember) open index pages on the main parge. There where child porn sites listet. Todey they only feature manged index lists (CP Free). So there was child porn in the past. Today? .. Maybe. -- (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand the nature of freenet. If there was childporn, there is childporn, and will always be chilporn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Freenet do not store files or websites "forever". They may be kept there if someone keeps accessing them, but if the major lists drop them, people won't surf into them and they won't be propagated anymore. When that happens, the files will slowly disappear from the network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The sites sty avaailable as long as people watch them. That’s why freenet users don’t even check them. Depravity-Voyeurism in freenet has the effect it has in real life (strengthenes the subject), but in freenet you know it. Draketo (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I just checked it out and there are still a few OK cp sites on there, but most don't work too well. I think most pedos now use Frost or something, but I can't get that to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're an idiot...You just admitted to deliberately accessing child pornography on Freenet and attempting to access it on Frost, and your IP is public. rzrscm (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
hahahahah major fail.-- (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just went on freenet in the light of the wikileaks-US stuff going on. After five minutes I noticed a lot of posts referring to 'darker material', '<11', 'explicit stuff, not picky', etc. WTF people?! Sick. AbHowitzer (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

yeah, i'm the same way. i was just interested to see what kind of "underground" material freenet has that would even make it necessary, and all i see is CP this, CP that. should have seen that coming, i suppose, but i didn't.-- (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
All Freenet bookmars to "Indexes of freesites" are without links to CP. Even on Freenet you need find right place, where CP is shared (i am not talking about Frost, which is spammed with messages making illusion about CP everywhere). And do not forget, "freedom of speech exist" and "freedom of speech doesn't exist", nothing else between that.... because you don't need protect something what is widely accepted by people and is not against law. --Lukastek (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


I'd love to see a section that provides a critical discussion of freenet: a summary of both strengths and weaknesses. What is it best at? what is it worst at? What uses are are recommended? what uses would it not be suitable for? What answers to the above questions are expected to change over time? Basically, why would an interested newbie invest the time to install & use this, in plain, practical terms (as opposed to technical/political terms)? (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that those would be helpful, but we can only add material for which we have sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Such discussion would be par for the course in the academic papers - it'd be an odd crypto/CS paper which didn't discuss the perceived advantages (and disadvantages) of its proposed scheme. --Gwern (contribs) 02:44 5 January 2011 (GMT)

And no mention that Freenet 0.5 still exists and is much more anonymous than 0.7; there was mention, but it seems to have been killed.Paganize (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I never heard that Freenet 0.5 are more anonymous than 0.7. If there is a source for it then it should be added back.Belorn (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Not an unrelted source, but: Draketo (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone please correct me because I want clarification on this too. I thought the concerns that 0.5 users had were eventually addressed in 0.7, and that 0.5 or FCON (a fork of 0.5) have now become irrelevant. I thought the main concern was that in 0.5 users had to manually ask peers for node connection info, like they had to join an IRC chat channel and request node reference exchanges. 0.7 has an option for automatically connecting to strangers, operating in manual trusted-peers-only mode, or both, so that both desires were addressed. Even if you are connecting to strangers, I thought the strengths of anonymity were still largely preserved even in 0.7 since a node, or even your ISP still couldn't determine if a data request came from your node or if it originated from somewhere else. If this is not the case and there are code changes which are claimed to be less secure in 0.7 in comparison to 0.5, it would be important to discuss and mention them in the criticism section. Yfrwlf (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
There are other concerns, but the primary one I know of is Darknet; it should not be implemented by default & should have adequate warnings before it is possible to use it instead of a random opennet. When in a Darknet, other freenet users who share your interests will send and receive packets specifically to your node. If, for instance, your interests include whistle-blowing, a hostile government only has to arrest one member of a Darknet to have a pretty good idea which Freenet nodes share the arrested persons interests. In 0.5 & FCON, only the very first time that you run it do you need a node reference, upon connecting to the network it begins storing the address of all discovered nodes. Upon verification that the nodes are up, all packets sent out are sent randomly to nodes that have been discovered; this was the essentially basic concept of how anonymity could be assured. I have read that in the days just prior to the release of 0.7, there was talk (now deleted, and unprovable) by the developers that 0.5 was too anonymous, and something had to be done to limit illegal activity. Paganize (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
This isn’t the case: People share not only one interest. The information you get by seeing that two people have a darknet connection is just information you already have: that the two people know each other. While it wasn’t public knowledge in 2007 that this is the case (though we already knew about Echelon back then), it should nowadays be perfectly clear that any somewhat dedicated attacker can find almost everyone you know — except where you only know each other through anonymous channels (but then you would not connect over darknet — darknet connections are for childhood/school/university friends, family, colleagues, members of the same club and so on). Draketo (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it run on free software too?[edit]

I know that Freenet is free software, but does it require any non-free software?

It requires Java. Do the free Java implementations suffice? Gronky (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Freenet ran on OpenJDK, but you get a warning indicating that it unsupported by Freenet. It was a while since I last tried it, so they might very well have changed it.Belorn (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
A friend has mentioned that it's in Gentoo. Seems there's been progress made indeed. I'll try to put it into the article somewhere. Gronky (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It runs fine in OpenJDK, so no, no non-free software is required. Yfrwlf (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Freenet 0.5 vs Freenet 0.7[edit]

If someone could expand on the history of the Freenet 0.5 to Freenet 0.7 fork and differences in communities, that would be appreciated. johndoe32102002 (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly COULD expand on it quite a bit, as the founder of the FCON fork, but I'd have no references for any of it.... (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
FCON looks as dead : (last commit 2010-09-20), IMHO the 0.5 section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong link in Libraries FCPLib[edit]

Link leads to CppFCPLib. It is C++ and not C libraries, as described. For now i have found just this link for FCPLib . (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freenet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)