Hello there, I think this thread ended up conflating two issues:
- The PR aspect: how people may perceive the network if illegal activities flourish first, overshadowing its true usefulness for the average Joe, grandma and legitimate companies.
- The control of the unappetizing content and/or antisocial behavior.
These are two very distinct problems, each with different scopes.
I think the first issue is rather simpler, we can host hackathons and invite startups to explore the network first, as a soft opening.
There are plenty of applications that could leverage the robustness of the design of the network, making case studies for more traditional companies to study it.
There were several users in this forum exploring the idea of leveraging the SafeNetwork for a Electronic Health Records.
Are there any other businesses/use cases that would benefit from having privacy, data-loss proof and 100% uptime guaranteed? These are the properties that must be emphasized in promotions.
The second issue is a can of worms. I think most likely it could be boiled down in principle to a very simple truth: as in basic encryption, either everybody is protected or nobody is protected. I don’t think there is a magic solution that will allow us to pin point bad users or bad content without losing anonymity, in my mind that sounds as rational as “a backdoor that will only work only on the bad guys”. Sounds good in paper and sounds logical, but is it really technically feasible?
Have the web of trust ever worked?
In any case, I think metamoderation would be useful to moderate behaviors in social environments and it would self-correct as moderators behaviors would be moderated by other users, but I don’t think it will ever be (and shouldn’t be) a technical way of identifying actual content.
We discussed it here: