Remix.run Logo
▲ aktenlage 5 hours ago

It's not black and white though. There's a scale from "easy to censor without collateral damage" to "need to take the whole nation offline to suppress information flow".

And there is a scale from "trivial to circumvent, if only (you know) you want to" to something like "need to be very tech-savy and use custom hardware"

▲cowlevel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.

▲M_bara 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

OTOH, third world or dictatorships won’t blink when it comes to turning off an entire country - example is Tanzania in the recent election.. are there solutions for communication when international links are cut? A lan like solution scaled to cities or an entire country that is disconnected from the rest of the world?

▲Pifanjr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can receive data over radio waves, which would be pretty hard to block country-wide I think. Sending data would be a bit trickier without being caught.

▲saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent [-]

this does require quite some expertise. as u noted sending can be triangulated. Also because this sending issue, it wouldnt really be an internet since only few parties would have the resources for mobile or ship-based transmitting systems that are harder to pin down or stop

▲setopt 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut?

How far can you scale wireless mesh nets?

▲kmacdough an hour ago | parent [-]

In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP. It's already a self-building network. The hard part is how you incentivise transit nodes. Currently that's what ISPs and backbones provide. They are incentivised to interconnect because that's their core business model. So a truly decentralized Internet requires a decentralized incentive system.

This would enable circumvention, but it's also pretty easy to triangulate radio signals, so it's fairly easy for a belligerent organization to track that someone is sending something.

▲solyin an hour ago | parent [-]

> In theory, there is no reason it can't scale indefinitely using something similar to IP.

I'm sorry, that just wrong. Gupta-Kumar capacity scaling law (2000) says that as you add participants, each participant gets less bandwidth, until it becomes impractical. Imagine a room with 10 people talking in it. Easy. Now imagine 10,000. Hard to have a conversation if it's still all ad-hoc.

▲hdgvhicv 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

You have to increase the width of the mesh.

▲teiferer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> are there solutions for communication when international links are cut

There are, but currently the most promising one is under control of a very rich and very politically opinionated person who is not afraid to use that power in any way he pleases.

A truly distributed version (with multiple tech stacks, ownership and control) would be the real solution but I don't see any way this could ever manifest.

▲brightball 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is essentially the case for Starlink

▲dachris 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On the one hand, yes. That's why possession of a starlink terminal can get you killed in Iran.

On the other hand, Ukrainians are finding out that someone else is in control of that starlink infra.

▲saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i don't think anyone with enough money for shootin clusters of sattelites into orbit will be a free open internet builder. ofc thats an assumption. This network of sattelites would also need to join in and coordinate with other stuff up there, as far as i can tell its pretty crowded and theres collision risks etc.

▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲root_axis 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Except Starlink won't hesitate to censor you as well as the Ukrainians are discovering.

▲hdgvhicv 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s only censorship when a democratic government does it. When an unelected businessman with no oversight and more power than most counties does it isles just property rights.

▲retrac 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been reading about the early history of the Internet.

The first ARPANET link to the United Kingdom required an exception to UK law. The traditional interpretation was that the state telecom monopoly (the General Post Office) had a monopoly on data transport. It was assumed that national governments have an absolute sovereign right to inspect data packets at the border, just like they do mail and parcels. That includes searches and seizures of foreign propaganda, material illegal under domestic law, etc.

> In early 1971 Larry proposed to break the circuit and connect in the NPL network to the ARPAnet. Unfortunately for that plan (but not for me), at this time the British government was trying to get the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC governments, particularly France, were in any case suspicious of U.K. links with the United States. It was therefore politically impossible for NPL to be linked directly to a U.S. defense project. [1]

But the Internet was an experimental network. An exception could be made. Everyone would pretend that they were inside the United States legally speaking. This sort of worked when everyone was an academic restricted by network access policies of their institutions.

> I set up a Governing Committee, with the funding partners on it: Ann Letts represented the BPO, Donald Davies represented the NPL, and I was the Chair. Because of the questionable legality of what we were doing, all proposed users had to be approved individually. I put in security procedures so that all users had to log-in, with a password, on our relay.

[2]

This is related to the protocol wars of the 1980s. The X.25 protocol that was supported by all the established telecoms providers, included mechanisms for packet authority, automatic packet billing, and political boundary packet inspection mechanisms. [3]

X.25 was decried as too centralized, too complex, and too centred around the interests of the established telecoms. (Which it was.) TCP was better for both technical and political reasons. But the Protocol Wars were not a permanent victory. It was a wonderful moment in world history but the underlying tensions have resurfaced.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224386328_The_early...

[2] http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/darpa/internet-history.htm...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War...

▲armchairhacker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except they're not taking the whole country offline. AFAIK even simple VPNs work without issue. Iran took the whole country offline, because their country barely functions, and still some people managed an external connection.

▲WarOnPrivacy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Iran took the whole country offline, because their country barely functions

Iran took their whole country offline because they locked the country behind CGNAT - which is an ideal tech for offlining an entire nation.

▲GeorgeWBasic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They managed the external connection because they were being provided with one by outside nations trying to topple the government. They were promptly arrested and the "protests" fizzled out. Trump then bombed them anyway.

▲reaperducer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As Spain, Italy and now France are showing us though, states have no hesitancy to take the whole country offline to block just one piece of unwanted information.

The whole country of France went offline? When did that happen?

▲cowlevel an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Soon. Because of the protests again the government, the government ordered the ISPs to set up a nationwide block that the government can enable at the flick of a switch. See here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50229861

▲SahAssar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It didn't. They are probably referring either to Quad9 being ordered to block resolving certain hosts (and therefore deciding to not offer service in france) or the french prime minister sending a notice to ISPs to prepare DNS blocks for twitter, facebook, etc.

In both cases this is not taking the whole country offline, and for both of them you can easily bypass the "block" by using any other DNS provider. You don't even need VPN/TOR or anything else complicated.

▲watwut 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At this point, I worry about censorship of American Tech CEOs a lot more. Because it is both very real and deliberately destructive.

▲Arodex 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What are you talking about? When have Spain, Italy and France cut their Internet?

▲mikestew 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every time there’s a football game? At least that I’m hearing in the case of Spain. No, they don’t throw a switch, but they turn off enough CDNs to effectively turn off the internet.

Again, no personal experience, but have heard enough from folks here to believe it.

▲Galanwe 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Some folks on internet are not representative of a nationwide issue...

▲mmh0000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

  Spain: https://www.euronews.com/2026/09/18/in-spain-football-matches-knock-thousands-of-websites-and-services-offline

  France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_France
        : https://codekhabar.com/post/france-orders-isps-to-ready-dns-blocks-for-major-social-platforms-on-oct-24
I haven't been keeping up with Italy, so you can look that one up yourself.
▲reaperducer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Like most LLMs, the links you cite don't back up what you wrote.

If you don't know the difference between preventing a group of sportsball fans from watching illegal streams and actually taking a country offline, delete yourself.

▲jp_sc 6 minutes ago | parent [-]

I know the difference between blocking individual sites and every site hosted at Vercel or behind Cloudflare

▲majicDave 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I absolutely agree, and it isn't even a scale, it's multi-dimensional. There are many different little problems that the internet solves, and they could also be solved with many different little alternatives.

▲saidnooneever 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

cant you just disable resedential and non critical connections? ISPs etc. know whos who right? no need to take the nation offline. only the people in it (civilians, medium/small businesses etc)

u could likely also readonable tell if someone would be enabling others via their access without even inspecting the actual traffic

▲entropyneur 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Russia is trying that (white lists) and it's proving costly enough that even they have to back off. They'll probably get there eventually but it requires serious investment of money and time and inevitably hampers the economy.

▲saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent [-]

interesting thanks. i guess its a drastic measure, which costs a lot, so there would be some potential tippingpoint in which the risks to the censors or the costs they are racking up by not doing it outweighs the costs of cutting it all off. Also ofcourse, 'they' need their populations somewhat with them. if an entire nation stands up you have a revolution, so maybe its a balancing act to prevent that. cut it here n there but keep the main perception its all temporary or localized etc