Given the US recently made a bid to fast-track multiple censorship bills, KOSA included, and is also trying to kill Section 230 now, which will pose an existential threat to Fediverse instances hosted over the clearnet, how feasible would it be to host said instances over Tor/I2P?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From a technical pov nothing is stopping it. Tor addresses are valid domains names and you can run your own fediverse in those networks. The problem becomes when you want clearnet instances to send you content. As they aren't running in tor or i2p they can't send you stuff.

The other problem is exit nodes are fairly well known for being the source of bad shit and many instances will block them as part of their anti spam/bot setup

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As they aren’t running in tor or i2p they can’t send you stuff.

A server can run on both the clearnet and darknet simultaneously, but indeed I don't think that works that well if the server name is the identifier for an instance — since it would be different between the networks.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

If you detach the origin from the host it'd work, aka HTTP Alternative Services. Firefox used to (maybe still does? idk) use it to silently switch from using the base hostname to a hidden service when running under Tor, when the site provided the mapping.

Clearnet stuff would work without it, but any I2P/Tor support needs server integration, which would be non-existent at the moment I'd bet.