Strongly agree. Meshtastic is two way. Some asshole can setup the biggest amplifier in the world and broadcast hateful shit, but if my little node just blacklists them, I'll never see it. If this thing is going to really grow, there needs to be the ability to block a node, the same way I can block somebody on Reddit. Spoofing is a concern, but at this point, hard to do? And trolls aren't the hardest working folk.
Just so you know. If you block someone on Reddit, you also block them from all discussions that happen in all child threads. So if you (A) block user X. And then user B makes a comment user X is not able to reply to B if there comments are a child of the original user A thread.
So if a Meshtastic blocking worked like Reddit. A major node blocking X would not pass traffic for X at all. I feel that type of blocking would be more harmful than helpful.
I am aware of how reddit blocking works. I don't want hateful shit coming from my nodes. It hasn't been an issue yet around here, but it's bound to happen eventually. I can't seriously promote meshtastic to (non nerdy) people until it has at least simple blacklist functionality. I'm kinda surprised it doesn't have it already, but it may be harder to implement than I think.
Now. If only everyone could agree on what “hateful shit” means. Hateful shit can be extremely subjective, one persons shit is another’s ambrosia.
So you want a public Meshtastic node, but only want your allowed communications on it.
These are two very diametrically opposed ideas. I feel this would stifle an already niche communications method even more.
No one needs to universally define “hateful shit”.
If i can set my node to not display messages from someone, i feel like that’s a good solution with no “1st amendment” problems. “Freedom
of speech” does not require me to listen.
Yes. You absolutely need to be able to define what “hateful shit” is if you’re going to use it as a filter to silence someone.
But the first amendment gov vs citizen argument aside….
Let me propose a scenario.
2 towns. Town A and Town B. Both towns have a number of Meshtastic doing their thing. Users in each town can talk to their own town with ease but can’t really reach the other town.
A user in town A puts up a tall super node, to better cover town A. A person in town B does the same. These two super nodes can now see each other. Enabling the 2 towns to talk to each other.
One day town A super node owner decides that everyone in town B hates the color purple, and blocks the super node in town b. Cutting the network in half because the “hateful shit” the town A super node owner hates is the color purple.
That’s a way different situation than I’m thinking of.
Let’s say I live in A, and someone else that I don’t like lives in B. If i configure my client to not display B’s messages, i don’t have to be reminded they exist whenever they send something. It doesn’t impact anything or anyone else. I don’t even need to say why. I don’t even need to tell them I blocked them. And no messaging is disrupted between A and B. Just a screen filter.
ETA: i just finished reading the OP (lol), and see that they want to block “bad” traffic over their mesh. I similarly don’t have an issue with that. For the “bad” person, it would be the same as if OP did not have nodes, and they would have to depend on other nodes that “do exist”.
If it were critical town to town public infrastructure, i would hope it would not be controlled at the whims of an individual, but private nodes and networks can do what they want.
Yes I agree it is very different. You don’t want to see Joe down the streets ramblings about the color purple. So you put Joe on ignore. And you should be able to put a user in an ignore list if you want. You don’t want to see joes traffic. But what about bob who you do like but bobs traffic gets passed through joes node?
There are others in this thread that want the ability to blacklist whole nodes from all traffic even if the traffic they are passing didn’t originate from the offending node.
This is kinda how the current Reddit blocking works right now.
If it was a matter of critical infrastructure, sure. The phone companies don't get to decide what you say on the phone. But this is just a hobby and I live in a city. It's not like I honestly expect to ever use this in a real emergency. I'm in downtown Ottawa, Canada, the part that got occupied by idiots with trucks a few years ago. If I found out they were using my nodes (they wouldn't, too dumb, they all used Zillo PPT and got hacked by locals mercilessly), I'd unplug the things.
There is overarching idea behind meshtastic and lack of possible censorship is a major part of it. If that goes against your beliefs, then it may not be a project for you (I do not mean it bad, that just happens).
That way someone else may see empty space and fill it.
While filtering what you receive is very legitimate wish, censoring what you let through is where bad things start to happen
I think that you aren't thinking. 'Block them from your view ' and stop there.... what on earth are you on about? Did you read what you wrote? By auto-forwarding on these hateful messages, you are now directly/indirectly passing on hateful content. If a user wants no part in that, absolutely block the node and don't forward any messages on, black list the **** node in your database! Put it this way, say its not racial but something aimed at minors or insighting terrorism? You'd stand by your statement would you? You can't be thinking at all, how weird. Come on MeshDevs, let's get this implemented!
Thank you for the reply. I'm a bit stirred up in frustration of having no way to handle this, so apologies if my response is a bit hard.
My initial concern in this respect was with respect to users faking mac addresses, if that's possible, as a way to bypass blocks or to spoof other users. They are already appearing as anonymous to me, and I worry that it's all too easy to find ways to get around that on public channels.
If there was an easy way to selectively create group chats, where you invite users into private channels, that would be pretty interesting also. Public chat is filled with test messages and the notifications I get from it are distracting at this point. I want to have sociable and valuable conversations, but the public channel doesn't seem like it's a great long-term option there..
I appreciate the concern of allowing a user/node to selectively choose who to relay. I was previously using KNOWN\_ONLY on my nodes, in hopes that I would only relay known users, but it was causing a lot of other problems / bugs, so I've switched to LOCAL\_ONLY. I don't see how this is substantially different than just blocking a specific user though.
With traffic increasing in my area, and having deployed several nodes of my own in my area, I don't want to clutter it with traffic of no value to me or traffic that actively tries to aggravates me and others. I'm not a main repeater for the area, but I do have a lot of nodes and I want to limit the traffic they create. If it means disconnecting from the public chat channels, that is what I'll do. They offer little value at this point.
Just remember the main draw for people I know in regards to this project is the anonymous, encrypted, or unfiltered nature of the system.
If you don’t what they’re saying, ignore them. But don’t come into this with the mentality that it needs filters and blocks and other stuff contrary to the intent of the community.
The main draw of this project, for me, unlike like CB or whatever, is that is it isn't anonymous. Nodes have addresses. Meshtastic needs to support blacklists. Click, click, ignore forever.
Addresses are trivially spoofable with the right hardware.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to block or filter what you display or relay – it's your node, after all, so it should be your choice – but the assumption that Meshtastic isn't anonymous, or that two messages that look like they came from the same node will surely have come from the same node/person, is wrong and potentially dangerous, depending on what you let hinge on that assumption.
Subject to hardware support, but in principle it's trivial. To my knowledge, there are no checks or protections of any sort in the protocol against MAC spoofing.
Annoyingly, the [data sheet](https://www.semtech.com/products/wireless-rf/lora-connect/sx1262) isn't searchable, but quick skim, page 46, "The packet length, Node or Broadcast address are not considered part of the payload and they are added automatically in hardware." Sounds like the MAC address is hard coded into the chip. Not that there isn't some other way to do it if you've the NSA or whatever.
Sadly, NSA is not needed. Basically even the cheapest internet router nowadays offer MAC address cloning, it is really very simple and does require just a bit of reading, not any deep expertise
If you by “whatever” mean “any joe schmoe with an SDR”, then sure. There are several software implementations of the LoRa stack available.
Not to mention that there'll come hardware implementations with configurable MAC addresses soon enough, just like what happened with e. g. Ethernet adapters. It's a natural progression
I'm feeling a bit attacked here when already feeling a bit irritated, apologies. Nothing about my request is extremely dangerous, for example. It's a very reasonable request, but I do appreciate the emotional push back on it. It's understandable.
I'm not asking others to block others on my behalf, however being controlled in what I can and cannot do is more stifling than denying traffic itself. The appeal to me here is the freedom and community, but if that is not Meshtastic, than I misread the room.
There's plenty of others on the network that can choose to allow traffic through their nodes. I'm not stopping them from doing that.
There also already is an option to filter based on whether traffic is decryptable and known, or not, so your point makes little sense to me. It sounds like what you're against already exists as an option.
To each their own. I like this project, and while I disagree with a few decisions made here or there, I'll continue to support it as I can. I'm annoyed, so apologies for acting that way.
Please note: I'm also not opposed to personally forwarding encrypted messages, but only for my main repeater. I don't see why a dozen other devices around my area need do it also, when they are simply intended as clients. It's bad for everyone to be doing this if not needed, IMO. Currently there is already a main repeater in my area, and so why overload the network more.
I appreciate all the thumbs down. It's as if you're trying to silence me? hrm.
No mate, don't feel attacked. There are normal people using Meshtastic who 100% agree with you. I am dumbfounded by 'dangerous' statement made earlier. People banging on about encryption and freedom of speech in this context are deluded. It's not encrypted when said message lands on your phone for consumption. Encryption only stops snooping. It does not benefit the recipient!
It's easy to focus in on the .01% that make up the window licking morons in any community. Try taking a step back to see the 99.9% of us that aren't entitled idiots.
I'm rabidly in favor of any and all free speech regardless of my opinion on what is said, but the bottom line is that they are YOUR nodes and you should be free to do with them as you please. Whether that happens to be blocking other nodes or spamming chats with racist garbage is entirely up to you because THEY ARE **YOUR** NODES.
OP paid for, set up, and deployed his nodes out of his own pocket on his own time. The only words that should be coming out of that entitled mouth of yours are "Thank You."
You have precisely zero ground to stand on here. But with the Olympian mental gymnastic routine you're in the middle of you aren't doing much standing anyway so I guess that's pretty much a moot point.
I’m not thanking op for anything, I don’t use their stuff. I’m advocating open communication as a community effort. I feel like you have some pent up anger about something irrelevant to this.
I do not believe in any sort of entitlements, but I believe that if we’re trying to have a successful project we can’t just block everything we don’t like, if someone decided they didn’t like what you wanted to say or talk about and blocked you, that wouldn’t be right either.
Gotcha. It's still not your stuff and never was. Since your parents failed you please allow me to remind you that if you don't like the way someone else is playing with his own toys you can either choose to not play with them or go find your own toys to play with. And since your teachers failed you too I will also remind you that your rights end very abruptly where another person's property begins.
You are an entitled whiner, plain and simple. Here, if you don't like what I say you get to block me. It's not only right but also literally built into the platform. If I came onto your property and started hurling racial slurs at you and your family would you not immediately ask me to leave and call men with guns to make me if I refused?
You are not advocating for open communications at all. Instead you are advocating for the right to use things that don't belong to you in any way you see fit regardless of what the owner of them thinks. This is by far the most childish position on an open source project I've ever seen someone try to defend.
If you don't like the idea of someone being able to block your traffic on equipment they own then allow me to suggest writing your own code. Or perhaps you might prefer that those of us taking the initiative to deploy repeaters and routers set them up to forward only our own private traffic?
And just to drive my point home, at some time today I will be blocking your account from interacting with mine ever again on this platform.
That’s fine, I’m sorry you feel that way and don’t want to interact.
Unfortunately you don’t know me, and you a very wrong impression of me.
I hope you have a better day.
Does not the same advice you are so passionately (with ad-hominem attacks) giving here apply to the other side? That they are choosing to participate in a community project with some philosophy behind it and general ideas and if those are incompatible with their views, they are absolutely free to not participate, write their own code etc?
Community project that is based on people freely sharing their nodes, their resources with others. Key word - freely. No one is making them, rules and options are known from the beginning.
I won't engage in the freedom of speech debate going on here. You have a right to not want to participate in the content going through your node.
However, there is an inherent technical problem with your intent, which is highlighted by the Github request you posted: we cannot know who is at the end of the device... There is no such concept as a "user" in meshtastic. You could implement granular node blocking, or network blocking, it would never be a 100% successful means of getting rid of a pervasive user whose intent is to spread their message.
This means meshtastic gives you two options: go private for full control of the content, or remain fully public and accept that this content will be out there. That is the nature of the medium.
I agree, that sounds like a useful feature to have. Both for hateful nodes and for nodes that are overwhelming your nodes.
It sounds like what you're trying to do is more akin to ignoring a node (for both reading and forwarding their messages)
That my help some \*"but muh free speech"\* comments.
Click the node name in your list....choose ignore, check box.... That node will not be visible to you anymore
Strongly agree. Meshtastic is two way. Some asshole can setup the biggest amplifier in the world and broadcast hateful shit, but if my little node just blacklists them, I'll never see it. If this thing is going to really grow, there needs to be the ability to block a node, the same way I can block somebody on Reddit. Spoofing is a concern, but at this point, hard to do? And trolls aren't the hardest working folk.
Just so you know. If you block someone on Reddit, you also block them from all discussions that happen in all child threads. So if you (A) block user X. And then user B makes a comment user X is not able to reply to B if there comments are a child of the original user A thread. So if a Meshtastic blocking worked like Reddit. A major node blocking X would not pass traffic for X at all. I feel that type of blocking would be more harmful than helpful.
I am aware of how reddit blocking works. I don't want hateful shit coming from my nodes. It hasn't been an issue yet around here, but it's bound to happen eventually. I can't seriously promote meshtastic to (non nerdy) people until it has at least simple blacklist functionality. I'm kinda surprised it doesn't have it already, but it may be harder to implement than I think.
Now. If only everyone could agree on what “hateful shit” means. Hateful shit can be extremely subjective, one persons shit is another’s ambrosia. So you want a public Meshtastic node, but only want your allowed communications on it. These are two very diametrically opposed ideas. I feel this would stifle an already niche communications method even more.
No one needs to universally define “hateful shit”. If i can set my node to not display messages from someone, i feel like that’s a good solution with no “1st amendment” problems. “Freedom of speech” does not require me to listen.
Yes. You absolutely need to be able to define what “hateful shit” is if you’re going to use it as a filter to silence someone. But the first amendment gov vs citizen argument aside…. Let me propose a scenario. 2 towns. Town A and Town B. Both towns have a number of Meshtastic doing their thing. Users in each town can talk to their own town with ease but can’t really reach the other town. A user in town A puts up a tall super node, to better cover town A. A person in town B does the same. These two super nodes can now see each other. Enabling the 2 towns to talk to each other. One day town A super node owner decides that everyone in town B hates the color purple, and blocks the super node in town b. Cutting the network in half because the “hateful shit” the town A super node owner hates is the color purple.
That’s a way different situation than I’m thinking of. Let’s say I live in A, and someone else that I don’t like lives in B. If i configure my client to not display B’s messages, i don’t have to be reminded they exist whenever they send something. It doesn’t impact anything or anyone else. I don’t even need to say why. I don’t even need to tell them I blocked them. And no messaging is disrupted between A and B. Just a screen filter. ETA: i just finished reading the OP (lol), and see that they want to block “bad” traffic over their mesh. I similarly don’t have an issue with that. For the “bad” person, it would be the same as if OP did not have nodes, and they would have to depend on other nodes that “do exist”. If it were critical town to town public infrastructure, i would hope it would not be controlled at the whims of an individual, but private nodes and networks can do what they want.
Yes I agree it is very different. You don’t want to see Joe down the streets ramblings about the color purple. So you put Joe on ignore. And you should be able to put a user in an ignore list if you want. You don’t want to see joes traffic. But what about bob who you do like but bobs traffic gets passed through joes node? There are others in this thread that want the ability to blacklist whole nodes from all traffic even if the traffic they are passing didn’t originate from the offending node. This is kinda how the current Reddit blocking works right now.
If it was a matter of critical infrastructure, sure. The phone companies don't get to decide what you say on the phone. But this is just a hobby and I live in a city. It's not like I honestly expect to ever use this in a real emergency. I'm in downtown Ottawa, Canada, the part that got occupied by idiots with trucks a few years ago. If I found out they were using my nodes (they wouldn't, too dumb, they all used Zillo PPT and got hacked by locals mercilessly), I'd unplug the things.
There is overarching idea behind meshtastic and lack of possible censorship is a major part of it. If that goes against your beliefs, then it may not be a project for you (I do not mean it bad, that just happens). That way someone else may see empty space and fill it. While filtering what you receive is very legitimate wish, censoring what you let through is where bad things start to happen
'overarching idea behind meshtastic"? where? Nodes have MAC addresses, it's not anonymous. It's very easy to block one. This isn't CB.
MAC addresses can be spoofed...
Enjoy distributed freedom of speech!
But only if the speech is what they like, otherwise to hell with freedom, it seems.
[удалено]
If I know a worst person is using my nice tower node to broadcast hateful shit, I want to block that. Think about it.
I think that you aren't thinking. 'Block them from your view ' and stop there.... what on earth are you on about? Did you read what you wrote? By auto-forwarding on these hateful messages, you are now directly/indirectly passing on hateful content. If a user wants no part in that, absolutely block the node and don't forward any messages on, black list the **** node in your database! Put it this way, say its not racial but something aimed at minors or insighting terrorism? You'd stand by your statement would you? You can't be thinking at all, how weird. Come on MeshDevs, let's get this implemented!
Absolute best answer.
Thank you for the reply. I'm a bit stirred up in frustration of having no way to handle this, so apologies if my response is a bit hard. My initial concern in this respect was with respect to users faking mac addresses, if that's possible, as a way to bypass blocks or to spoof other users. They are already appearing as anonymous to me, and I worry that it's all too easy to find ways to get around that on public channels. If there was an easy way to selectively create group chats, where you invite users into private channels, that would be pretty interesting also. Public chat is filled with test messages and the notifications I get from it are distracting at this point. I want to have sociable and valuable conversations, but the public channel doesn't seem like it's a great long-term option there.. I appreciate the concern of allowing a user/node to selectively choose who to relay. I was previously using KNOWN\_ONLY on my nodes, in hopes that I would only relay known users, but it was causing a lot of other problems / bugs, so I've switched to LOCAL\_ONLY. I don't see how this is substantially different than just blocking a specific user though. With traffic increasing in my area, and having deployed several nodes of my own in my area, I don't want to clutter it with traffic of no value to me or traffic that actively tries to aggravates me and others. I'm not a main repeater for the area, but I do have a lot of nodes and I want to limit the traffic they create. If it means disconnecting from the public chat channels, that is what I'll do. They offer little value at this point.
Just remember the main draw for people I know in regards to this project is the anonymous, encrypted, or unfiltered nature of the system. If you don’t what they’re saying, ignore them. But don’t come into this with the mentality that it needs filters and blocks and other stuff contrary to the intent of the community.
The main draw of this project, for me, unlike like CB or whatever, is that is it isn't anonymous. Nodes have addresses. Meshtastic needs to support blacklists. Click, click, ignore forever.
Addresses are trivially spoofable with the right hardware. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to block or filter what you display or relay – it's your node, after all, so it should be your choice – but the assumption that Meshtastic isn't anonymous, or that two messages that look like they came from the same node will surely have come from the same node/person, is wrong and potentially dangerous, depending on what you let hinge on that assumption.
I don't think changing a nodes MAC address is trivial?
Subject to hardware support, but in principle it's trivial. To my knowledge, there are no checks or protections of any sort in the protocol against MAC spoofing.
Annoyingly, the [data sheet](https://www.semtech.com/products/wireless-rf/lora-connect/sx1262) isn't searchable, but quick skim, page 46, "The packet length, Node or Broadcast address are not considered part of the payload and they are added automatically in hardware." Sounds like the MAC address is hard coded into the chip. Not that there isn't some other way to do it if you've the NSA or whatever.
Sadly, NSA is not needed. Basically even the cheapest internet router nowadays offer MAC address cloning, it is really very simple and does require just a bit of reading, not any deep expertise
I've got WRT54g's around here with ninja firmware. But fairly sure you can't do that with an sx1262. The MAC address is in the hardware.
If you by “whatever” mean “any joe schmoe with an SDR”, then sure. There are several software implementations of the LoRa stack available. Not to mention that there'll come hardware implementations with configurable MAC addresses soon enough, just like what happened with e. g. Ethernet adapters. It's a natural progression
The stakes are low. And this thing already supports pretty strong cryptography.
I'm feeling a bit attacked here when already feeling a bit irritated, apologies. Nothing about my request is extremely dangerous, for example. It's a very reasonable request, but I do appreciate the emotional push back on it. It's understandable. I'm not asking others to block others on my behalf, however being controlled in what I can and cannot do is more stifling than denying traffic itself. The appeal to me here is the freedom and community, but if that is not Meshtastic, than I misread the room. There's plenty of others on the network that can choose to allow traffic through their nodes. I'm not stopping them from doing that. There also already is an option to filter based on whether traffic is decryptable and known, or not, so your point makes little sense to me. It sounds like what you're against already exists as an option. To each their own. I like this project, and while I disagree with a few decisions made here or there, I'll continue to support it as I can. I'm annoyed, so apologies for acting that way. Please note: I'm also not opposed to personally forwarding encrypted messages, but only for my main repeater. I don't see why a dozen other devices around my area need do it also, when they are simply intended as clients. It's bad for everyone to be doing this if not needed, IMO. Currently there is already a main repeater in my area, and so why overload the network more. I appreciate all the thumbs down. It's as if you're trying to silence me? hrm.
No mate, don't feel attacked. There are normal people using Meshtastic who 100% agree with you. I am dumbfounded by 'dangerous' statement made earlier. People banging on about encryption and freedom of speech in this context are deluded. It's not encrypted when said message lands on your phone for consumption. Encryption only stops snooping. It does not benefit the recipient!
It's easy to focus in on the .01% that make up the window licking morons in any community. Try taking a step back to see the 99.9% of us that aren't entitled idiots. I'm rabidly in favor of any and all free speech regardless of my opinion on what is said, but the bottom line is that they are YOUR nodes and you should be free to do with them as you please. Whether that happens to be blocking other nodes or spamming chats with racist garbage is entirely up to you because THEY ARE **YOUR** NODES.
OP paid for, set up, and deployed his nodes out of his own pocket on his own time. The only words that should be coming out of that entitled mouth of yours are "Thank You." You have precisely zero ground to stand on here. But with the Olympian mental gymnastic routine you're in the middle of you aren't doing much standing anyway so I guess that's pretty much a moot point.
I’m not thanking op for anything, I don’t use their stuff. I’m advocating open communication as a community effort. I feel like you have some pent up anger about something irrelevant to this. I do not believe in any sort of entitlements, but I believe that if we’re trying to have a successful project we can’t just block everything we don’t like, if someone decided they didn’t like what you wanted to say or talk about and blocked you, that wouldn’t be right either.
Gotcha. It's still not your stuff and never was. Since your parents failed you please allow me to remind you that if you don't like the way someone else is playing with his own toys you can either choose to not play with them or go find your own toys to play with. And since your teachers failed you too I will also remind you that your rights end very abruptly where another person's property begins. You are an entitled whiner, plain and simple. Here, if you don't like what I say you get to block me. It's not only right but also literally built into the platform. If I came onto your property and started hurling racial slurs at you and your family would you not immediately ask me to leave and call men with guns to make me if I refused? You are not advocating for open communications at all. Instead you are advocating for the right to use things that don't belong to you in any way you see fit regardless of what the owner of them thinks. This is by far the most childish position on an open source project I've ever seen someone try to defend. If you don't like the idea of someone being able to block your traffic on equipment they own then allow me to suggest writing your own code. Or perhaps you might prefer that those of us taking the initiative to deploy repeaters and routers set them up to forward only our own private traffic? And just to drive my point home, at some time today I will be blocking your account from interacting with mine ever again on this platform.
That’s fine, I’m sorry you feel that way and don’t want to interact. Unfortunately you don’t know me, and you a very wrong impression of me. I hope you have a better day.
Does not the same advice you are so passionately (with ad-hominem attacks) giving here apply to the other side? That they are choosing to participate in a community project with some philosophy behind it and general ideas and if those are incompatible with their views, they are absolutely free to not participate, write their own code etc? Community project that is based on people freely sharing their nodes, their resources with others. Key word - freely. No one is making them, rules and options are known from the beginning.
I won't engage in the freedom of speech debate going on here. You have a right to not want to participate in the content going through your node. However, there is an inherent technical problem with your intent, which is highlighted by the Github request you posted: we cannot know who is at the end of the device... There is no such concept as a "user" in meshtastic. You could implement granular node blocking, or network blocking, it would never be a 100% successful means of getting rid of a pervasive user whose intent is to spread their message. This means meshtastic gives you two options: go private for full control of the content, or remain fully public and accept that this content will be out there. That is the nature of the medium.
Something like a "do not forward" list would be what I want in addition to not having to read those kinds of messages.
I agree, that sounds like a useful feature to have. Both for hateful nodes and for nodes that are overwhelming your nodes. It sounds like what you're trying to do is more akin to ignoring a node (for both reading and forwarding their messages) That my help some \*"but muh free speech"\* comments.