Well it was at one time illegal everywhere to help slaves escape. So we are going to say something is just pure evil because all governments have deemed it illegal? We would not have legal marijuana today if it wasn’t for the fact people talked about it and posted pics of their grow-ops and stuff in the early 2000s IMO.
You aren’t the first person to mention this so don’t feel singled out. Just there seems to be growing consensus that somehow we know what is FOR SURE bad. How can we say for certain that is not just a product of our culture/environment/era?
Of course you have to draw a line somewhere. There are things MOST people don’t want to see. But people being like I love cannabis is not something I think everyone would automatically want filtered out for them because it’s illegal.
With my dog its best if I just be the boss of her because I look out for her. Is it the same with humans though? Is the government always looking out for me so I should just do what it says without quesiton?
As I say, it’s a highly nuanced issue. Personally I’m much less bothered about who sees what than what can be done with it by powerful individuals seeking to whip up a mob. I don’t have the answers (when I think about possible solutions I just get this brain fog) and I’m hoping someone clever will come up with something that dynamically balances ideas of freedom (which also aren’t universal) with possible societal harms.
Yes that is the thrust of the OP here. If sometimes some people do bad things oh well, we just have to deal with that barring some novel solution. What is damaging to this project in the way I think most people here envision it is if it turns into a rally point for a mob. Then it becomes known as that and we are stuck in this small niche of giving assholes a place to congregate when the actual goal was to make something “mainstream”
For me this really gets to the heart of the issue, and a lot of the unrecognised problems with the internet.
I don’t think it’s a popular opinion here or anywhere else, but I’m actually starting to think it would do no harm to give up a lot of the wonders of a world scale information network in order to pay more attention to some of the things closer to home, whether that’s good or bad things. A tech project forum might not be the best place for me to be hanging about with those views though!
Is the goal making something “mainstream”? Can something be mainstream and free at the same time? I don’t think these questions should influence the technical side of the network too much(aside from optional, non-obtrusive filtration). What’s legal now may become illegal everywhere in 20 years. The whole world might decide to take Australia’s cup-size approach to regulating cp. The UN wants to make drawings illegal too. Who knows what will happen. Countries besides China, even ones typically seen as “reasonably free” already have some ludicrous laws when it comes to freedom of expression.
To be honest, I think SAFE will be niche for a long time after it is released, simply because most people don’t value freedom all that much. It’ll probably be mostly in the realm of academics, reclusive hobbyists, and unscrupulous people. If an average Joe wants to take the plunge, they’ll finally be given some freedom. You can never trust people for too long, so people cannot have control over the network.
so we are really going though all this effort just to make a 4chan that can’t be penetrated? That’s not what I have been investing in all this time. I have been investing in the hope that it will be FOR EVERYONE as the acronym directly says it is lol. What a waste of millions of dollars and thousands of hours of time from our best and brightest if all it turns out to be is a sespool of assholery that only assholes want to use.
If that’s how it turns out, it will only be the fault of those who choose not to use the network and make the best of it, assuming people can create and have access to the kind of enviroment they want. If people can do that, and avoid whatever they want to avoid, but choose to not use the network because of whatever reputation it gets, again, their fault. What’s actually on the network doesn’t even matter if media groups want to demonize it for whatever reason. Even having freedom is a reason many people will want to demonize it. You can’t have faith in everyone. You can’t expect them to be reasonable and think for themself. You can’t expect them to be honest or have good intentions. At the very least, people should be able to protect themselves from each other.
I am not really concerned about who is to blame if it fails like that. If it fails it fails and I made a bad investment. If there is a way I can push it towards really being for everyone then I want to do that. Maybe you could argue the onus should be on them and I should not stick my fingers in the pot. But what I am proposing is while we have what I consider a “good group” here we do mess with it if we can. Of course we want to do that without creating centralization and thus failing in a different way. I totally agree with you if that’s what you are saying. Just trying to think of reasonable ways we can steer it towards being mainstream without totally changing the fundamentals.
Maybe what I am proposing is “manipulation” and I understand how that is generally the enemy of decentralization. I am proposing “whitehat manipulation” IMO though.
That is to miss the point… SAFE is not just about freedom - it’s also privacy; and security… and beyond is greater that the sum of parts… which perhaps is best described as utility - it’s a tool… but generic, like oxygen.
Such events as data breaches have effect beyond just the dull thoughts of individuals…
See a short list of those at List of data breaches - Wikipedia and those from what we know about. There will be alsorts of other motivators…
It’s too easy to over analyze - just like its easy to make assumptions - and errors follow from assumptions… you can assume the downside and the upside; reality is likely somewhere inbetween… though given the utility, it’s worth a punt… and more. Frankly if .gov had sense given the state of the economy, they’d invest for the good of all; if orgs wanting to live past the average understood to invest in their own interests, they’d do the same.
The mainstream appeal will follow some application not the base concept… but you’re right most people do not have motivation for idealistic action such as valuing freedom for its own sake, their interests are nuanced and so for mainstream it’s the sum of interests… which leads back to what is generic - for that you simply need to follow what is base; fundamental; and natural - without the assumptions of what is good and bad.
The MVP is a simple core… and like the unSAFE internet, what it becomes later will be different… but better for having a strong core set uncorrupted by good intents to know what is best for others before there is a problem.
Unforeseen consequences are the problem of techno-solutionism as a whole. It’s very hard to grasp the big picture when you’re dealing with ones and zeros, let alone what the butterfly wings of your creation are going to lead to. No going back though. We have to come up with technology that’s better thought through next time. That’s why I’m always heartened when this debate comes up, even if solutions are hard to find.
You’re not proposing manipulation, IMO; you’re proposing choice. I think it’s only fair that the Network facilitate third party filtration systems. Facilitate, of course, is not the same as mandate or develop in-house.
Let me put it to you this way: if there is no way I can consciously avoid running into a SAFE site with CP, I personally would not use it. So, add to the list of killer apps for SAFE a high-functioning search, ratings, and filtering dApp that people can use (or not) and fine tune to their preferences if they so desire.
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:
ya that is a very good point. when I created this topic I wanted to focus on issue 1. The PR aspect. but it seems like any attempt to do that ends up in number 2.
I was hoping we would more discuss how we set the stage so things move into a positive direction. That’s something we will only have one shot at. Once the network is huge there really only is issue 2 that can be addressed at all. So since working on number 1 is a limited opportunity I was hoping we could focus on that now and worry about number 2 later.
I honestly see your questions/discussions applying to the applications that will be running using the SAFE network rather than the SAFE network itself.
So people will complain about say SafeTube, or Jams, or … rather then the SAFE network. Probably these complainers will not even know there is such a thing as SAFE network, but rather the APPs, and payments will look more like android games mini payments they do.
nah SafeTube and Jams will be the kind of app that shows people this network is not just a tool of the devil. Those things are pretty much exactly what I mean by set the stage. We want enough of these that the few people selling biological weapons or whatever are clearly not a representation of what happens on SAFE on average.
would you care to elaborate why you think that instead of just hurling insults with no justification? Like what you expect? Ohhhh this rando that hardly ever contributes anything says my thread is stupid… well I better just shut it down because he is clearly the authority here
ok since you don’t really make an articulate point I will have to assume what you are trying to say so correct me if I am wrong. You are saying its for everyone so we should include the white supremacists and terrorists. If you read the OP my point is not that we will ever be able to totally eliminate that. Lets just do what we can so criminality is not our brand like it is for Tor.
