The Freenet Political Ideal

Most decentralized applications have the concept of community membership. A node is expected, or at least hoped, to obey certain rules. "Give to get" in Gnutella and Napster is one example, storing the file indices of others is another. What is different and compelling about Freenet is that the technology is designed to enforce global rules about behavior in a decentralized way: it is about citizenship rather than membership.

Freenet is built in these layers, in this order:

1.  Anonymity is good.


2.  The mixnet strategy can be used to game for anonymity.


3.  Any technology that helps the mixnet strategy is good.


4.  Any technology that does not compromise the mixnet strategy is acceptable.


5.  Participants in a distributed mixnet have a civic duty to support all of these rules.

The important thing is that the developers don't want you in the community unless you agree with all of the above. Within the limits of their power you cannot attempt to undermine anonymity or the mixnet strategy. The web, Gnutella and Napster all define rules as whatever the parties are willing to tolerate. Seti@home et al define rules as whatever the master node is willing to accept. Freenet defines rules as civic duties. Either you are for anonymity via mixnets or you are not in the community.

Freenet is an implementation of the political ideal that there should be tightly integrated and highly disciplined societies. This is a lot more unusual than anonymity.

True?