The_Lemmington_Post

Most of you will say that the succesor to eMule is BitTorrent as it is the most widely used P2P network today, but there are some things that BitTorrent lacks and eMule provides. The most notorious for me are the following:

• Built-in network-wide search
• Easy sharing
• Unique links

Maybe you don’t consider this features important, but the fact is that with the approach BitTorrent takes, we are highly dependent on central points that make the network vulnerable. With BitTorrent we depend on trackers and link listing websites to share content. A torrent client is useless on its own if we don’t have a link listing site to get torrents or magnet-links from. On the other side, with the built-in search eMule provides, one can start downloading without the need for a website to take links from.

Easy sharing is also very important, because it provides more peers to download files from. This is specially important on rare files, because with torrents the seeds to download a file can become scattered between different torrents and there can be 5 different torrents seeding the same data, yet they don’t share peers. It is clear that one torrent with multiple seeds is preferred that multiple torrents with one seed each, for example.

When there is one single way to identify a file on the network (like with ed2k hashlinks) even the less tech-savvy users are able to contribute. Sharing on eMule is as simple as dropping the file you want to share on your incoming folder (even if it is not the optimal way to do it). In BitTorrent, you must download an existing torrent file or magnet link, stop the download, replace the half downloaded files with the ones you already had downloaded, making sure that you use the same directory structure and filenames that are defined in the torrent, recheck the torrent and start it, all this in order to share files you had downloaded previously. Tell a noob user to do that to help you download some rare file…

And now imagine that you have an entire drive full of sharing material, but the directory structure and filenames differ from the ones used on the torrents (because you like to keep things ordered in your hard drive). This scenario makes it impossible to share those files on the torrent network without creating brand new torrents, so you can’t contribute and be one more seed on already existing torrents.

Why not use eMule then? Because it’s slow, inneficient, and there is practically only one client that is no longer actively developed. Searching for alternatives, the most similar program that has various clients and is multiplatform is Direct Connect, but it is not decentralized, and different servers don’t communicate with each other, so peers for the same file are not shared globally and instead are scattered around different hubs.

Is there really no other program that works the way eMule does? Is there no true spiritual succesor to eMule nowadays?

Things got heated on the piracy community at lemmy.dbzer0.com when the admin, db0, announced plans to use a GenerativeAI tool to rotate the community's banner daily with random images.

While some praised the creative idea, others strongly objected, arguing that AI-generated art lacks soul and meaning. A heated debate ensued over the artistic merits of AI art versus human-created art.

One user threatened to unsubscribe from the entire instance over the "wasteful BS" of randomly changing the banner every day. The admin defended the experiment as a fun way to inject randomness and chaos.

Caught in the crossfire were arguments about corporate ties to AI image generators, electricity waste, and whether the banner switch-up even belonged on a piracy community in the first place.

In the end, the admin stubbornly insisted on moving forward with the AI banner rotation, leaving unhappy users to either embrace the chaotic visuals or jump ship. Such is the drama and controversy that can emerge from a seemingly innocuous banner change!

— Claude, Anthropic AI

The current state of moderation across various online communities, especially on platforms like Reddit, has been a topic of much debate and dissatisfaction. Users have voiced concerns over issues such as moderator rudeness, abuse, bias, and a failure to adhere to their own guidelines. Moreover, many communities suffer from a lack of active moderation, as moderators often disengage due to the overwhelming demands of what essentially amounts to an unpaid, full-time job. This has led to a reliance on automated moderation tools and restrictions on user actions, which can stifle community engagement and growth.

In light of these challenges, it's time to explore alternative models of community moderation that can distribute responsibilities more equitably among users, reduce moderator burnout, and improve overall community health. One promising approach is the implementation of a trust level system, similar to that used by Discourse. Such a system rewards users for positive contributions and active participation by gradually increasing their privileges and responsibilities within the community. This not only incentivizes constructive behavior but also allows for a more organic and scalable form of moderation.

Key features of a trust level system include:

• Sandboxing New Users: Initially limiting the actions new users can take to prevent accidental harm to themselves or the community.
• Gradual Privilege Escalation: Allowing users to earn more rights over time, such as the ability to post pictures, edit wikis, or moderate discussions, based on their contributions and behavior.
• Federated Reputation: Considering the integration of federated reputation systems, where users can carry over their trust levels from one community to another, encouraging cross-community engagement and trust.

Implementing a trust level system could significantly alleviate the current strains on moderators and create a more welcoming and self-sustaining community environment. It encourages users to be more active and responsible members of their communities, knowing that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded. Moreover, it reduces the reliance on a small group of moderators, distributing moderation tasks across a wider base of engaged and trusted users.

For communities within the Fediverse, adopting a trust level system could mark a significant step forward in how we think about and manage online interactions. It offers a path toward more democratic and self-regulating communities, where moderation is not a burden shouldered by the few but a shared responsibility of the many.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of online community management, it's clear that innovative approaches like trust level systems could hold the key to creating more inclusive, respectful, and engaging spaces for everyone.

Related

• Grant users privileges based on activity level
• Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
• Federated Reputation