To me SAFE will be successful if its introduction ends sponsored bribery based supply side media globally. Sponsored media exists to concentrate power and spread despostism through misinforming the public about the public interest in order to disempower the average person. Sponsor class spin, censorship and political capture and speech enclosure have been successful to the point that we have lie based societies globally.
I look forward to the time when it is understood that free speech belongs to the individual not the media (the media should have no filter role because at best its a slippery slope) and when it is again understood that money is not speech any more than murder is speech and that commercial speech is last in line and that government and corporate secrecy are unacceptable without exception. Also that theft of attention is also unacceptable (a breach of the peace and of privacy) and that attention must be paid for by full direct compensation to the end user and only where the end user opts in and where the end user must intiate the always reversable opt in and where the end user must always have total control over end user interface (no modal anything.) And that privacy is a right needed to preserve freedom by the way of conserving a viable platform for speech.
With regard to trade secrets, financing innovation does not justify legal enforcement of trade secrets and further NDAs should not be allowed to prevent corporate accountability in tort or employment. SAFE should make these forms of censorship impossible.
SAFE along with better search that doesnât have the sponsor bribery conflict of interest should get rid of law for purchase and get rid of sponsored (puppet) politicians who are there to sell out the public and are always culled by corrupt wealthâs sponsor filter. Interlocking boards are also unacceptable. SAFEâs impact should begin to clean up corruption generally by providing much stronger truth matching power to the global public. We should as a result see the return of legal protections like the fairness doctrine (which prevented the bribery and puppeteering that sponsored elections aim at) and also the free speech doctrine which stopped theft of attention and put supplier-employer speech in its proper place at the end of the political democratic line to protect political speech and prevent a money megaphone going to concentrated wealth.
About 25 years after the introduction of the WWW, the tree killing paper based sponsored news papers died off in the states. The paper product dropped off over that span. Hoping SAFE can kill sponsored conflict-of-interest based media much faster as there is no greater threat to freedom and democracy. Human kind literally will not survive without this as the current challenges are too great and there is no greater corrupting influence or greater obstacle to necessary changes.
I should note that I do not believe a successful SAFE coin is needed for this but it could help.
This kind of consolidation and capture only scratches the surface of what sponsorship allows. Words like patronage, spoils, pre-emption, enclosure, most fundamental of conflicts of interest⌠sponsorship is the worst word in the English language because, outside of its unfortunate use in A.A. and immigration, it is about using money to convert people into property, it is the defacto assertion of a right to exploit or a right to slavery it is what opens the door to every kind of abuse because it blinds the population and makes the population mute and dumb as it strips the population of rights and freedom and security.
I agree. I think the SAFE Network is part of the solution. Most members have only identified part of the problem or down to a certain level of the problem. While there are levels deeper that are and arenât backed by data, this forum isnât friendly to that kind of discussion. That said, should SAFE pull off what it is intended to, the deep truths will rise and be brought into the light. It will likely surprise us all but certainly the naysayers of which there are legion.
That is a given- look at Australia. It has to catch on and not simply be globally outlawed and blocked- it has to hit critical mass and then transition to ISP free networks (no ISPs) and hardware (fully end user owned- no manipulable points.)
Being declared illegal by a government implies that it already achieved some measure of popularity.
Those of use who care about decentralisation, privacy and freedom need to get used to the idea that we may be labelled âcriminalsâ by some governments.
We need to be mindful that the majority of people donât care about those ideals. They wonât bother using SAFE unless they have a tangible economic outcome. If we offer them a compelling product then they wonât mind âbreaking the lawâ any more than they already do when they download copyrighted movies from the Internet today.
The key to success is not our ideals (we are a minority), the key to success is tapping into the greed of the people.
They have not declared the âdark webâ as illegal and they wonât declare safenetwork illegal either. At least in most western countries including Australia where I live.
So donât expect the safenetwork to declared illegal, protocols are not declared good/bad/illegal, its what done using those protocols that could be. EG transmitting illegal images.
They have not declared anything about the internet illegal in the laws. Just that data must be retained by ISPs and the companies must render all assistance in providing unencrypted messages, even if it requires a backdoor built into the software. And only for australian registered companies. And the penality for non compliance is fines up to 10 million dollars from memory.
So the safenetwork cannot be compelled to hand over unencrypted data since it is neither an entity in that sense nor is a registered business in Australia.
EDIT: Bittoreent is also not been outlawed or made illegal yet it is the biggest headache for the movie companies that donate millions and millions of dollars to both the major parties in Australia for the specific purpose of getting laws to make it illegal. They have been told that it will never happen. So they changed to attempt to get internet filtering, then finally they got the ability to approach the court to get domains blocked if they meet certain criteria. Nearly 30 Years of trying and that is all they got - a piss poor law to take months to block a few sites that google DNS bypasses
EDIT2: Google, Apple, Samsung and some of the other major companies have registered offices in Australia and they will have to provide all assistance to the police when requested to provide unencrypted forms of communications. So only off-shore messengers (eg wire, wickr) will be secure for Australianâs to use
It is going to be very interesting. Currently my suspicion is a lot gets filtered on the internet, political or personal pressure is put on organisations to delete and prevent information being revealed.
With no one to threaten to take servers down, I think a lot of people are going to be able to let us know whatâs really going on in their corner of the world.
The key to adoption will be compelling applications, content and functionality which is over and above regular apps. Developers need complelling reasons to store data on Safe versus amazon-S3, consumers need compelling reasons to use Safe over Dropbox or whatsapp. Information privacy isnât enough. Donât get me wrong this is a gigantic problem but the magnitude of data collection and use (abuse) hasnât surfaced to a point at which the majority of people take it seriously.
Normally Iâd say Warren is going off on one of his tangents again but today I just got a notice that tumblr is going to start censoring explicit content. Pintrest does the same and when you factor in data mining and advertising you have to wonder how much control over the media a law suit and profit have. Whatâs the dollar worth of free speech? So to a degree I agree, maybe not to his extreme, but if a corporation can be paid x amount or sued for x amount to censor y content then thatâs a problem. I donât have a problem with run of the mill advertising per se so long as everyone knows whoâs logo youâre wearing. The problem with ads crops up when people donât know is getting paid to be someoneâs mouthpiece. Essentially is it your own opinion or are you getting paid to repeat someone elseâs opinion?
However I donât think this is going to get people to switch. Like others have said what will get people to actually switch is quality easy to use apps not rhetoric about advertising and politics. Breaking a monopoly isnât a question of politics itâs a question of convience and economics most of the time. If you want to fight the man then make doing so practical, easy and something people want to do.
That is what Musk is trying. But the reason politicians are for sale and we have trouble booting fossil fuels is because the media is for sale making it possible to buy politicians. The US lost its mind and started allowing and encouraging this and we got sponsored politicians. We also got entitled theft of attention. And then theft of privacy and altered question asking with horrid sponsored search. Even the questions people ask are getting spun with sponsor corrupted search.
Please define theft of attention or âentitledâ theft of attention. The problem seems less that attention and privacy are being stolen but that people are giving it away or âsellingâ it in exchange for things like convience. People really donât consider the value of their attention or privacy and so like any other undervalued commodity it gets grabbed up by those enterprising enough to seek it.
As for political sponsorship the problem at least it part seems to be this: Political campaigns rely on getting a political message of one kind or another out to the public. Traditionally this has been done using television, radio and other forms of mainstream media which are very expensive. With the advent of the internet the cost of publicizing a message has come down (as evidenced by Donald Trumpâs constant Twitter activity) but still most politicians still rely on expensive advertising campaigns and most also invest in PR as well. From the mainsteam mediaâs standpoint television and radio is expensive to produce and so selling advertising is one way to cover those costs, politicians are just one customer to buy air time. Itâs no different when you sell Google ads on your website to cover costs of hosting the site. The problem is that the cost of these ads and therefore using the traditional means of running a political advertising campaign have become so high that only the super rich can afford to run for office. So what really needs to change is the venue of media. Stop using television, radio, etc which are extremely expensive as a medium to run a political campaign. Just like there are nations that are switching away from analog radio and television we need to switch away from using televisoin and radio, and other analog media to promote political campaigns. If it costs a ton to buy advertising on then in turn itâll cost a ton to politically compete on.
Warren I think you need to turn your argument around. Instead of saying advertising is evil start thinking about it in cutting down price of advertising so that people can more easily compete on the market. Think of it in terms of monopoly vs diverse competition. You donât complain about buying a pack of chewing gum do you? No because the price is usually low enough that it isnât a problem. So if the price of an ad isnât a problem to the average Joe that it doesnât inhibit their ability to engage in political discourse and run for office then advertising isnât as much of an issue. And if everyone is paying a small amount to endorse different things then competition can balance things out. Itâs when you have millions of dollars going to big corporation and the little guy gets stepped on that thereâs a problem.
Also consider that some people WANT to endorse various products and services. People endorse products they love all the time for free. The difference is only do they get paid for it or not. Really you arenât going to get rid of advertising. One way or another itâll manifest. If you banned paid advertising youâd have companies giving away free stuff to fans who were devoted to their products and have more money spent developing fandom. Boom âfree advertisingâ.
There was a time before advertising and soon there will be a time after its prevalence. Smart search obviates its need. There is no right to push anymore than a right to graffiti.
Top down one way mediums are part of the problem. The fairness doctrine on speech like thr fair use doctrine for libraries recognized speech enclosure as a problem. It said the public owns the air waves and it reduced the cost of political speech to zero as a condition of media firms retaining their charters they carried elections for free or lost their charter and license. Bringing that back is the right way to do it for the so-called âmainstreamâ which info media shouldnât be. Along with monopoly busting in the states and cleaning up interlocking boards. Sponsorship is the deepest conflict of interest in a democracy and most of just law is cleaning up conflicts of interest especially those pertaining to money. You canât have a democracy and sponsored consolidated media which drowns out all else, you canât even have the threat it represents. Current issues with climate change and eliminating fossil fuels wouldnât amount to much without out the idiocy of sponsorship and the equally idiotic doctrine that money is political speech which amounts to a right to speech enclosure for the rich which is equivalent to a right to exploit or the populace made into property. We have a right to vote and a necesssary share of the wealth in large part to keep us from becoming property.
Again search obviates the need for ads and free product would be cheaper and in context the cost to firms even though it is less is hardly a concern. Tesla doesnât advertise.
Your audience know you exist and know to type in the right keywords.
The search in question is not being censored or manipulated. Ex. Googleâs search bubbles or how certain keywords or websites might be delisted from a search engine because they are deemed offensive.
Quite frankly I have no problem with graffiti. Iâm sick to death of everything being painted white, grey and brown, or whatever neutral color you prefer. Granted I think tagging or whatever is a rather sad excuse for an art form but a better response would simply to paint over it or to post a rely. Turn graffiti into a mural rather than outlaw it as vandalism. Likewise change the metaphor for advertising. Advertising sucks but not because telling people about x product sucks as we do that ALL THE TIME and we do that for free. The problem with advertising is that most advertising is annoying, badly written, in your face, and like you said is pushed on you in the most obnoxious ways.
Warren if I told you I had read this most amazing book and I thought you should read it too would you get upset? No probably not. What if you saw a friend with a new jacket you liked. Would you ask where they got it? Of course. They tell you and you go to the same place. We advertise the stuff we like and use even without getting paid for it. We all grew up watching Disney. And by now the choice between Android and an iPhone is about philosophy and tech not âWhat is a cell phone and who are these companies?â No one asks who is Android or who is Apple anymore because everyone has one or knows someone that does. People are advertisement. Youâre not going to get rid of it.
I know you hate advertising and sponsorship. But the fact is paying to get a message out is part of business. Now in the future that could mean paying to get the best system techs to work with a search engine to promote search results in your favor or it could mean creating and promoting huge web rings to promote and direct traffic to your product. But it still will amount to the same thing. Fundamentally what advertising is is using power to buy and direct the influence and attention of others, specifically to benefit the promotion of a product or service. That isnât going to go away with a search engine tho I imagine it will have to change radically.
SAFE will not end the creation or running of a business. It will however change how businesses are run and set up.
I think there is much more than a balance issue here. First, your attention doesnât belong to them so they canât sell it without a cummulative breach of the peace with results like the corruption of law over the bribery based capture of attention as with the current sponsored media. As Iâve argued its a model for making people into property.
I am also under the impression that a while back Google started allowing paid prioritization of search results in the form of nudging where so much bribing of Google would amount to some hit correlation. This is pure stupidity in that Google is trading payment for decreasing the accuracy of its results in effect a pay for noise in the results scheme and stupidity because its dangerious for Google to evolve its AI around such corruption.
I also donât accept that the primary purpose of search is commerce or that a precondition of search is an end user knowing a business name.
To me that is inverted search or idiotic supply side search.
If search and AGI or even SI are largely search problems, we will I suspect see systems of search powerful to the point that people are able to learn what they wouldnât otherwise be able to absorb. We have that right now in a sense but I mean in a categorical or qualitative sense as in SI teaching a cat English and getting people to understand what would otherwise be far out of their reach. I also see that such system may be able to persuade people of what would otherwise be impossible even if such persuasion were to come as the result of the person making the querry asking to be persuaded or see the other side. Part of the upshot of this is that beyond needing a completely honest system it would also obviate the advertising its entailed money and effort, and also obviate the time and bandwidth wasted on ads all because search in its accurate power will find a best match when someone goes looking for something and see through attempts at puffing or gloss. Good product literature or available data would be apt but the idea of push even for novel products (which can spread by word of mouth or free samples) wouldnât be viable and isnât politically desireable.
No they donât own oneâs attention. Thatâs why they BUY it with x service or product. You watch a TV show and they BUY your attention with a comercial. You could argue that this is double spending because youâre already paying a subscription fee for your cable service or what have you but generally how the argument goes is the TV provider or whatever simply allows access to these various channels and isnât responsible for their programming or their costs. Same goes for internet, radio, whatever. So a business buys your attention by providing a service. Better example would be a free to play game that makes profit with pay to play downloadable content. You donât need to buy the content but it is available and advertised.
So your attention isnât stolen, itâs just bought at a very undervalued price. People generally donât value their attention very highly or, ironically, pay attention to what they devote their attention to.
Yes they did and itâs stupid as far as an accurate search engine goes. But remember Google is a business and is out to make profit so it makes sense from that perspective. However it DOES illastrate my point about how a search engine can be manipulated. Just because youâre using a search engine doesnât mean you are getting back unbiased results.
A search engine is a tool like any other. It can be used for business or a non profit or any other kind of organization or individual. Thatâs the point. Be mindful of how things are coded. Just like you can use a knife to carve wood or stab someone a search engine can be used to manipulate or give everyone completely unbiased information.
First define your terms. SI and AGI? Second I very much doubt accurate search will get rid of money. Remember all this tech depends on little things like electricity and having a roof over your head. Canât have search without paying the power bills. There will always be something people want to trade and a currency to mediate that exchange with so itâs very unlikely youâll get rid of money. Have you forgotten about all the homeless people or just people without internet? Contrary to popular belief the world is bigger than the internet. Therefore the need for money is bigger than âsearchâ. What happens when what you are searching for is not listed or indexed? Same thing applies to books you know. There are more hardcopy books than there are digital. Try visiting a library sometime. I love tech but Iâm not OBSESSED with it and I know its limitations.
Also consider that money also has a symbolic role as well. If someone is just doing a job and getting paid to do something they arenât as emotionally attached. Prostitution, psychotherapy, marriage counseling, accounting, divorce lawyers, I can think of a couple career choices where you might want emotional neutrality for one reason or another (of course you might not for other reasons). But my point is money is also a way for people to create that emotional buffer zone and a need for that as well is not something that will go away.
AGI Artificial General Intelligence and SI Super Intelligence.
Earlier court with free speech doctrine deprioritized commercial speech or placed it last in line to preserve vital political speech. Thatâs the correct balance. And attention comes to define people much more than their data- data just being a function of where focus is placed. I am saying we must get the conflicts of interest out of our use of attention as the earlier US courts recognized with the free speech doctrine and the fairness doctrine which recognized the public outright owned the communication space (more than owned this inalienable commons) with a fair use doctrine- well really something much stronger- supplier rights are next to nothing in comparison.
Because of the terms I think what I was suggesting about search wasnât getting through.
But we need these things so that by way of example Russia, Exxon, Saudia Arabia and Israel donât come way before the people of the US with the USG. Iâd say Russia and Israel seem like they have soft conquered the US through the capture of its bribery based supply side highest bidder sell out media.
But as far as SAFE this is why I believe its so important for the end user to have total control over the end user interfaces with no modal windowing or anything like that allowed. Over this very issue people become property.
Iâd disagree with you here. There is tons of personal, medical, and otherwise private data that people possess and that is important to keep private that people donât devote tons of attention to. People donât obsess over their SIN number for example until there is some government beaurocracy to deal with but that is definitely something to keep private. And I think another example would be geotags on photos as people donât pay enough attention to that. If your children share a photo of themselves that is geotagged and that gets into the wrong hands that can become a security risk. Attention != Data nor is Attention > Data. In fact many people sacrifice their security because of lapses in attention. We can create the best encrypted internet in the world but we canât code in for human stupidity.
AGI would be a ways off and SI would be a bit of a hyperbole as far as Iâm concerned given their are multiple kinds of intelligence. You can be genius at playing the piano but a total dunce at engineering or language. There are different kinds of intelligence. But even if we could manage to develop a AGI and SI Iâd say weâd run into a couple additional issues. 1. Weâd need to give them emotions so they could relate to us and so they could have things like loyalty, trust, love, compassion, etc. And as a consequence they would have many of the same psychological issues humans have. Granted they many have many different ones but still. 2. If we didnât give them emotions then weâd have ethical issues to deal with as weâd be developing super AI that was amoral and without conscious or emotion. Essentially weâd be creating super psychopaths. That in itself is a problem.
The problem with A.I. is not one of intelligence, though perhaps the question of how one defines intelligence should be asked, but rather one of ethics, morals, emotions and essentially how does one create checks and balances on that intelligence. For humans our intelligence is balanced by our emotions and by our conscious, and our instinct for self preservation. But will an AI have any of that? For example the most efficient way to get rid of an enemy nation would simply be to nuke the enemy nation. Fallout and nuclear winter means nothing to an A.I. These are things that matter to HUMANS. So this is why I say that we need to take special care in how we train A.I., be mindful of checks and balances, a take emotions, morals and ethics seriously as well as the implications thereof. Again AGI and SI are not some magic wand to be waved to solve all the worldâs problems and come with problems of their own.
If you can ask a search engine a general natural language question and it can give you a reasonable answer what happens to your data over time? What ensures that the A.I. can be trusted with the personal information itâs garnering from you? AGI canât function if it canât collect data in order to learn. Therefore AGI needs to be worthy of a userâs trust. What makes any AGI or SI worthy of that trust? How could say an FBI agent and a pedophile use the same AGI search engine without fear of one ratting out the other? Or an undercover cop and a drug dealer? Again how could they both use the same system? Law enforcement would demand backdoors etc aka broken security. But that means it could be cracked for anyone. Not SAFE network material. Better question is how would you code an AGI or SI on the SAFE network in the first place? I mean the SAFE network is quite different than the clearnet.
Or one could argue that Canadians could use such search to prevent the US and China from soft conquering our markets. The US after all is not the center of the universe. However I donât think search alone is going to change the entire system. The U.S. needs some democratic reform as well and to get rid of those super delegates. One of the key problems is while the govât gives out corporate charters it doesnât hold corporations responsible for their actions nor does it ever REVOKE corporate charters. Iâve never heard of a government revoking a corporate charter ever. So how can there by responsibility of action or any tracking of how much one advertises? Political advertising is supposed to be restricted and controlled as are political donations. However who are the people that politicians listen to? Those who make huge donations. Thatâs why Iâm emphasizing the connection between politics and advertising. Because you wonât make a dent in advertising until you decentralize political donations. As long as politicians rely on big corporations for their campaigns theyâll listen to big corporations to make their political decisions and itâll be more same old same old.