App to block/whitelist content

I scanned so might have missed the detail, but it seems no one has mentioned the possibility of a subscription service tied to an app or apps, or multiple such services tied to one. Such services, wiki run, could filter and categorize. I’m thinking StumbleUpon to a large degree. SU has central clearing but I really like a lot of its aspects. On SAFE it could be completely anonymous, even if the app and database were centrally “hosted”.

My main point is that SAFE doesn’t require that we not use services that we trust to do some of the filtering for us.

2 Likes

I agree with your point above but I can’t help it… dirty hand is dirty hand. To me if the police lie to the public they should do time. I want them and the state so transparent we can see them coming, never sneaking. Just because we can see them coming doesn’t mean they won’t be effective in getting justice. Its just like not wanting capital punishment because I don’t want the already dirty by default state mechanism involved in deliberate killing and reinforcing its power to kill with the public. My feeling is a Machiavellian state will lose every time against the never before seen non Machiavellian state and that such states would be a large step toward getting rid of states.

2 Likes

Yes, you probably wouldn’t want to access (un)Safe sites at work without a filter.
But I don’t know whether a filter proposed here would save you from seeing some titties - except fanatics who would bother to tag such photos as “illegal” or “sick”?

It just occurred to me that a filtering app would at the same time serve as a marketing tool for perverts.
The same set of rules could be used to create a “PervStumbleUpon” recco engine that could take one to a random pervert site or image of the day.
:smiley:

Yes, some form of crowdsourced moderating service could work. And any reputation system would be in the apps themselves as you wrote. I’m less convinced of reputation score in a moderation service for many apps, because then it can degrade into wars of reputation attacks, where apps are targeted just to bring down their reputation score. For example one video app competing with another video app, and both sides continuously posting nasty videos anonymously on each other’s apps, just to lower their competitor’s reputation score.

Those apps who use a moderation service would have “well-behaved” content. Other apps can on purpose have absolutely vile stuff, without any moderation at all, and then the responsibility is on the owners and users of such apps, not on the network itself.

In a fairly near future we may have moderation done by artificial intelligence. That’s something for the next decade or so.

1 Like

It seems like there’s an agreement that this system should use third-party whitelists/blacklists. I’d use blacklists/whitelists for all sorts of things, but different ones in different situations.

Ideally everyone would have lists of their own, with the option to make them public for people to subscribe to, and the option to allow people to (anonymously) suggest links for inclusion/removal from the list. This would result in big public trusted lists emerging, maybe owned by government accounts. If a big list started accepting unrelated submissions, they would lose credibility and get a bad reputation, so only the credible lists would thrive. Individuals’ lists could be used to share common interests by manipulating search results to prioritise content that friends approve of, like 'like’ing stuff on social media.

2 Likes

Fairly sure our tech (more detail here: Parental control mechanisms - Heading off bad press - #66 by Warren) could be adapted not just to include a collective list for older users, which could be enabled to block off “undesirable” content en masse and then rolled back on a category basis for those who want to fine tune what is allowed through the SAFE network. That would all be from a centralised list accessed in realtime by a per user (or per LAN) app.

Be happy to explore that further if there’s interest.

Regards

Chris

The issue shouldn’t be about filtering undesirable content to comply with state and corporate censorship standards. It should be about filtering sponsorship and spam(ads) so we can get media that serves us instead of pawns us. It should be about turning the volume on money way down so ordinary people can cooperate in working toward a better life for all of us. Keeping the current crop of corporations and keeping the current crop of the wealthy and powerful is not something the network should be wasting resources on, it should be working to mix things up and spread opportunity.

Stuff like popcorn time is great. I hope the worlds trade secret catalog get dumped into such open systems too. We want to filter the gateways and the undesirable business practices. We want to filter premium. Put pricing in the hands of the end users. Business should have no ability to set policy. We need to reverse the way power works in the world. Business needs to serve not be served. Employees/associates should come way before so called stock holders or owners.

3 Likes

I like this idea. If we want mass adoption, it’s got to allow for family friendly usage. I particularly like @fergish’s proposal with subscriptions. If anyone has ever used adblock for Firefox or chrome you’ll know about the various lists of URLs you can block. On maidsafe you could have an app/plugin that allows you to choose lists from people or communities you trust. No need for a centralized list anywhere.

4 Likes