this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
171 points (97.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54716 readers
269 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
171
The end of movie-web (programming.dev)
submitted 7 months ago by AnActOfCreation@programming.dev to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Is there an alternative way to register a domain that cannot be seized? It seems like domain seizure is the one thing that enables internet censorship. Is there some sort of block chain base registrars out there? I'm genuinely curious.

[–] Glass0448@lemmy.today 22 points 7 months ago

i2p or tor addresses. Which aren't popular because it's hard for both admin & user.

[–] reddithalation@sopuli.xyz 11 points 7 months ago

I think one way is to use a domain host that is located in some country that doesn't care at all.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 11 points 7 months ago

Is there some sort of block chain base registrars out there?

There are handshake domains, which are distributed on a blockchain, but sites that use them won’t resolve in browsers by default

[–] vox@sopuli.xyz 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

just don't use one?
host shit on bare ips

[–] matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can't have valid HTTPS on bare IPs.

[–] vox@sopuli.xyz 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

yah i forgor about that
but technically you can, but with a self signed certificate only (ehich are less secure; or by asking people to set up the dns manually)
with self signed certs you don't lose encryption, but the client won't be able to make sure that it's connecting to your server specifically

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Technically they could by manually verifying the cert from somewhere offline.

[–] hacktheegg@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From what I know, the for network fits this

  1. They need to have access to the private key to seize (and even then, the site can be taken back to warn others)
  2. Lack of centralised link buying service

(My knowledge comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ua8HrgZsAg)

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 7 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=0Ua8HrgZsAg

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.