tldr => it is not encryption we are lacking, but data transfer network, to be secure from islamoleftist traitors.
The problem is not the encryption. It is a well known mathematical fact that creating an encryption that nobody can break, is a trivial thing. Use a fucking arbitrarily long sequence of bits for XORing all the data and only the person with the key can ever open it. And the funny thing is that such encryption method can generate all possible messages of the same length if you try decrypting by using all possible combinations, i.e. the snooper cannot even tell if they have been successful in a cracking attempt or they have failed so even if they got a super computer the size of the fucking milkey way, they cannot use brute force on it.
The problem lies in other things, like message routing, key exchange, keeping the key secure etc. it does not matter what encryption you use, how will you keep the key safe and exchange it safely over long distance (this only has to be done one time though)?
All data is passed through servers that are controlled by "them". The second they identify a geographical location or a device where people are committing wrong think or committing the crime of nationalism, they can fucking just block the transfer.
Encryption part is trivial. It is the need for a data transfer network that is not "star shaped". What you need is an infrastructure, where you can defeat the islamoleftist traitors by being able to route your messages in ways, that monitoring all possible routing paths becomes impossible due to exponential time complexity.
I would suggest using something IRC style, if in case you truly want to fly under the radar (plain IRC won't do though, its architecture would have to be boosted)
same thing ... as I said, you need the central server to be able to route your messages. you can send an encrypted message which then they forward, or you can query them only for routing specs, the architecture ultimately remains the same "star". Nodes cannot communicate with each other unless they first go through the central server.
If I send you a Signal message, my phone contacts signal to get a route (meaning an IP) where your phone is
Instead of contacting signal to get this route, to have a distributed collection of machines, that will provide you this information.
Signal scenario:
endpoint 1 does not know IP of endpoint 2, so it asks signal server, the only server which has this information. If it comes to a situation that signal server thinks your claim for election fraud is "baseless and Joe Biden is president elect", it decides to not return you IP for any queries you fire at it. You are blocked, because all routing is controlled by the central server.
Relay scenario:
any interested person sets up a "relay server", containing a subset (small) of whatever IP addresses it knows. Any endpoint, when it wishes to send or receive message, it registers with some (atleast 1) "relay server". When endpoint 1 wants to send message to endpoint 2, it asks the relay server for the IP. If the relay server knows it, it will return the IP, if not, it will know of whatever relay servers it knows of, to find out who knows the IP. This query crawls the "relay server" network and finds the IP of endpoint 2. It is cached and returned to the endpoint 1.
Now if the relay server you connect to, or register your IP with, thinks that your claims of fake news is "dangerous rhetoric" and blocks you off, you just register to a different "relay server". Not just this you are free to put up your own relay servers whenever you want.
This would solve the problem of a single reptile eyed robotic CEO of social media blocking your entire outreach.
The other problem is of anonymity.
Along with returning the IP address of end point 2, the structure can be enhanced so that it not just returns the IP address, but also relays the message through the same path it found the IP address recursively encrypting and decrypting it at each hop. This will give you a strong anonymity.
The 1st scenario, I understand, is what IRC (Internet Relay Chat) did.
The 2nd scenario, I understand, is what TOR does.
We combine the two and we get a medium for social media / data sharing, that neither can be brought down by the whim of one single person, nor the data pathway be easily traced or tracked. It can be, but it will take as much effort as it does in case of TOR.
None of this is new. it is a combination of routing and encryption principles, but the current architecture of software / apps is not built this way. They are built using the most basic "star topology" (endpoing 1 has to get the IP of endpoint 2 by going to servers controlled by a single authority)
IRC style means that you create a relay kind of structure. "they" control the communications in big part because all communication has to first be sent to their server and then they route it to the destination. In IRC style architecture, you can start creating your own "routers".
Think about it. Why can twitter and facebook ban Trump's account? It is because all facebook and twitter accounts have to go to the facebook / twitter server to connect to your contacts. You cannot communicate with your contact directly. This allows facebook and twitter to analyze your communication graph and to shut you down.
In IRC style, communication between peers is not dependent upon such a central server for routing. "IRC routers" would contain routing information between peers, and even if one router were to be brought down, you could always relay the message via other routers, thus making it impossible to shut down accounts like facebook and twitter does.
You are not wrong, but the problem I mentioned still stands. All your message would be routed by the servers that are owned by "them" and they can choose to shut you out whenever they want. Even if they are not able to read your message, they can shut you down at their whim.
tldr => it is not encryption we are lacking, but data transfer network, to be secure from islamoleftist traitors.
The problem is not the encryption. It is a well known mathematical fact that creating an encryption that nobody can break, is a trivial thing. Use a fucking arbitrarily long sequence of bits for XORing all the data and only the person with the key can ever open it. And the funny thing is that such encryption method can generate all possible messages of the same length if you try decrypting by using all possible combinations, i.e. the snooper cannot even tell if they have been successful in a cracking attempt or they have failed so even if they got a super computer the size of the fucking milkey way, they cannot use brute force on it.
The problem lies in other things, like message routing, key exchange, keeping the key secure etc. it does not matter what encryption you use, how will you keep the key safe and exchange it safely over long distance (this only has to be done one time though)?
All data is passed through servers that are controlled by "them". The second they identify a geographical location or a device where people are committing wrong think or committing the crime of nationalism, they can fucking just block the transfer.
Encryption part is trivial. It is the need for a data transfer network that is not "star shaped". What you need is an infrastructure, where you can defeat the islamoleftist traitors by being able to route your messages in ways, that monitoring all possible routing paths becomes impossible due to exponential time complexity.
I would suggest using something IRC style, if in case you truly want to fly under the radar (plain IRC won't do though, its architecture would have to be boosted)
same thing ... as I said, you need the central server to be able to route your messages. you can send an encrypted message which then they forward, or you can query them only for routing specs, the architecture ultimately remains the same "star". Nodes cannot communicate with each other unless they first go through the central server.
https://thedonald.win/p/11RhFbOwMB/x/c/4DtDVC1glOd
Instead of contacting signal to get this route, to have a distributed collection of machines, that will provide you this information.
Signal scenario: endpoint 1 does not know IP of endpoint 2, so it asks signal server, the only server which has this information. If it comes to a situation that signal server thinks your claim for election fraud is "baseless and Joe Biden is president elect", it decides to not return you IP for any queries you fire at it. You are blocked, because all routing is controlled by the central server.
Relay scenario: any interested person sets up a "relay server", containing a subset (small) of whatever IP addresses it knows. Any endpoint, when it wishes to send or receive message, it registers with some (atleast 1) "relay server". When endpoint 1 wants to send message to endpoint 2, it asks the relay server for the IP. If the relay server knows it, it will return the IP, if not, it will know of whatever relay servers it knows of, to find out who knows the IP. This query crawls the "relay server" network and finds the IP of endpoint 2. It is cached and returned to the endpoint 1.
Now if the relay server you connect to, or register your IP with, thinks that your claims of fake news is "dangerous rhetoric" and blocks you off, you just register to a different "relay server". Not just this you are free to put up your own relay servers whenever you want.
This would solve the problem of a single reptile eyed robotic CEO of social media blocking your entire outreach.
The other problem is of anonymity.
Along with returning the IP address of end point 2, the structure can be enhanced so that it not just returns the IP address, but also relays the message through the same path it found the IP address recursively encrypting and decrypting it at each hop. This will give you a strong anonymity.
The 1st scenario, I understand, is what IRC (Internet Relay Chat) did. The 2nd scenario, I understand, is what TOR does.
We combine the two and we get a medium for social media / data sharing, that neither can be brought down by the whim of one single person, nor the data pathway be easily traced or tracked. It can be, but it will take as much effort as it does in case of TOR.
None of this is new. it is a combination of routing and encryption principles, but the current architecture of software / apps is not built this way. They are built using the most basic "star topology" (endpoing 1 has to get the IP of endpoint 2 by going to servers controlled by a single authority)
IRC style means that you create a relay kind of structure. "they" control the communications in big part because all communication has to first be sent to their server and then they route it to the destination. In IRC style architecture, you can start creating your own "routers".
Think about it. Why can twitter and facebook ban Trump's account? It is because all facebook and twitter accounts have to go to the facebook / twitter server to connect to your contacts. You cannot communicate with your contact directly. This allows facebook and twitter to analyze your communication graph and to shut you down.
In IRC style, communication between peers is not dependent upon such a central server for routing. "IRC routers" would contain routing information between peers, and even if one router were to be brought down, you could always relay the message via other routers, thus making it impossible to shut down accounts like facebook and twitter does.
The best (only) way is to build a web of trust, through exchange and signing of keys when you physically meet someone.
Read, and check out the whole manual. The same concepts would apply to Signal, I suppose, though I haven't used it.
You are not wrong, but the problem I mentioned still stands. All your message would be routed by the servers that are owned by "them" and they can choose to shut you out whenever they want. Even if they are not able to read your message, they can shut you down at their whim.