i have to agree with you. Some of these ACTS are despicable, the people though, they have a problem that they need help with. They either didn’t choose the way they were raised or how their brain was wired. Does that mean they should be free to harm others? Absolutely not but judging them doesn’t make you a better person, your actions do.
Were you referring to the “filth” on TOR, from the perspective of the general populous? or from your personal opinion? I think that’s where the confusion lies.
Does it have to be either/or? Does it matter? Why should my opinion matter? My point is that SAFEnet has nothing to worry about except being competent at what it is supposed to do. If it does just that then the world will flock to it and any notoriety and screaming will just be great unpaid marketing.
@bluebird I agree with your latter point, but if the former is your personal opinion, i would disagree but wouldn’t go very far to try and sway your opinion but i believe that if that is your opinion that said group are scum of the earth then that judgement is what @null takes issue with. Reading some of your other posts I believe this was all just miscommunication. Cheers to freedom for all.
@null agreed but not unfettered freedom of trade- as in we need to be free to trade our coal or our coke or our involuntarily harvested organs or our contract killing or our child prostitutes, or suppress standard of living and wages for most people or even some- we can never over look the problems with trade and money, that one is a fight to the death. Better ethical coffee than plantation coffee, and we can’t just let free speech and transparency be the only check even if these are working, we have to oppose things at times and not just say its ok to fill children with anxiety immune compromising sugar and additives because some lazy rent seekers wants that or force some questionable efficacy/safety drug/vaccine into children’s bloodstreams because of profit for some parasite. Or take fracking, they want to trade people’s access to clean water for profit and because bottle water is an oil product (plastic) and petrol cowboy profit increased in both cases. Just ban the profit and tell the investor thugs you invested stupidly and malevolently against people we are not going to socialize your risk or losses, now we are going to make you eat those losses in part to dissuade or we can toss you in prison- your choice, go ahead with fracking but never with profit again- that is freedom. The gains for whom question is necessary, its existential and its has to be equitable or the result is war and it can’t just be left to a market because that is sheer idiocy. We are going to have to move beyond an investor model. It doesn’t work, investors simply don’t contribute enough, its the inequitable use of money leverage.
A couple of months ago I wrote a little tale in a thread introducing another TOR/SAFEnet alternative, Ethereum-based AKASHA that I believed would spark some interesting discussion. It rather bombed at that.
No, before I make my argument, allow me to vent my frustration that the threshhold to become part of this community remains out of my reach. Nobody seems interested in producing a 32-bit Launcher1. For this reason I’m not as up on these discussions as I would like to be.
The community doesn’t as I perceive it, realistically perceive the ginormous momentum of the shitstorm that would ensue if what is today possible using TOR would offer itself to the world with a much easier user interface, courtesy of SAFEnet. MSM can easily ignore TOR, which means the general public isn’t aware of it or what takes place in its darker corners. This would not be the case with SAFEnet. Especially onerous is how I perceive interest groups inimical to SAFEnet and the crypto revolution could exacerbate this public uproar to the level of the Muhammad drawing unrest in the Muslim world in 2007, however on a global scale. They could do this by distributing sadistic child pornography and snuff. There would be a moral panic pandemic and draconian new Internet safety laws galore being passed everywhere.
Please, realize the dimensions of what you are about to unberth!
How would its public perception be different from Tor, exactly? Tor is very easy to access right now, except for someone with no computer.
By the way, what difference does 32-bit make, if you have no computer? The 32-bit no computer runs exactly the same software as the 64-bit no computer.
The whole idea of TOR is something underground, illicit. Why would most people who do not have a particular interest in computers and the Internet even know about it. And the media do not cover it broadly. SAFEnet, if it succeeds at all in its ambitions would be a trendy new thing, maybe even The Next Big Thing at an order of magnitude as great as that of the Internet itself. How can I even think such? Real anonymity with cross-protocol scope aimed at everybody? TOR never was that. Besides, the emergence of TOR was in a different age altogether.
A full frontal attack on SAFEnet for its “socially irresponsible” facilitating extremely harmful information (as to that fact we probably need not at all debate) to be circulated effortlessly could easily be just the lever for that angle on an attack on crypto currencies that tptb desperately are searching for. There’s about a quadrillion dollars of pilfered money at stake here (debt-based money, derivatives market).
I use public terminals, mostly at libraries (municipal, university), social services offices, etc. These are the type of connectivity available to indigent people here in Norway. We can take for granted that in most any other country the supply variety for this user group is poorer still.
If SAFEnet wants to make itself available to people at the bottom of the social ladder, which would reveal a true sense of community and social responsibility, then producing 32-bit versions for the Launcher should be a priority. I suppose the attitude at present is more like “I don’t have a 32-bit computer. Nor does anyone I know. Why should we bother about that?” If you didn’t realize it sooner, now I’m telling you you’re being myopic.
32 bit is a teir 1 platform, it did not make the last cut though. I am sure it will be for Alpha releases. I cannot remember the reason fo rlauncher 32 bit, but if it’s possible it will be done withink reason of course. 32 bit for now is reasonable so will happen. Thre are issue over file sizes memory mapped regions etc. to consider, but AFAIK these are not show stoppers there.
Being that TOR is at best friendly to governments and at worst a honeypot ironically set up by literal child-pornographers (google playden bust), I would not be so sure that the government wouldn’t selectively enforce some stupid ass laws in Safenet’s case.
I’m encouraged to hear this. I very much look forward to being able to run the Launcher and see what happens!
Your comment is beside the point: Tor has a glow of virtue, of fighting for freedom, despite the fact that various despised groups use it as cover. If you don’t think SAFEnet would be similarly perceived then you need to say why exactly.
Well, your priority should be solving your indigence, rather than being concerned with SAFEnet or Tor. If you fix that then you will be far more useful to the SAFEnet project.
Essential point! TOR isn’t “for real”. It’s a mock-up of free-for-all anonymity. When the real thing comes around there will be a backlash as have hardly been seen since Adam and Eve started eating apples. In fact that’s somewhat a valid analogy. They encroached on the Tree of Knowledge. Truly freedom of information is comparably huge.
Child porn is terribly powerful. You don’t go away they same person you were having watched it for the first time. Having it peddled to people like regular porn was in 1994 will cause an extremely powerful reaction, in my opinion.
No, my indigence is voluntary as a consequence of my value choices. It is not something I can fix before some basic mechanisms of our civilization are reformed. In the meantime, my value to the SAFEnet project should be, among other things, as an advocate for people who are indigent not by choice.
deleted several replies in this topic that weren’t in line with our Forum Guidelines. Don’t start personal flame wars, stay away from name calling and keep the thread on topic please. Thank you.
Back on topic:
Does anyone have a refutation of my observation that Tor is perceived in a certain favourable light despite certain encumbrances, and that therefore there is no reason not to expect similar conditions for SAFE? We simply don’t see a shitstorm around Tor. Instead, we see efforts by the authorities to circumvent the Tor security mechanism. Keep the armchair theorizing out of it.
I’m convinced from the Tor experience that the marketing ID competition discussion for SAFE is a total waste of breath. Its success will be determined by its utility.
I agree with @Halvor that the difference is that Tor is in effect niche, while SAFE is, I hope we agree, intended to be mainstream. If we don’t agree I think that would explain the difference of opinion (in which case the following is moot).
The most serious government adversary, the US government, created Tor for its own “good” purpose, so it has no interest in destroying it, which makes it unsurprising that it seeks to both use it for anonymity where it serves it, and to betray that security where that serves it.
SAFE is a different case because it is not created by or for (any) government, and because we envisage and seek widespread adoption.
SAFE could be used by governments for their own security and anonymity purposes (similar to Tor), in which case (like Tor) government might prefer to limit use of SAFE (to non-mainstream) rather than destroy it.
If we are considering governments who might be pure adversaries, they might well seek to undermine widespread adoption as @Halvor suggests.
I think the reasoning is plausible, although I’m not convinced it will happen.
Keep the armchair theorizing out of it.
Who sees Tor in a favourable light, and who does not? I wonder.
Never mind intentions; how, exactly, is it functionally different? You might plausibly argue that SAFEnet is a whole lot better, but in terms of access (download, click), how is it easier or ever going to be easier? And if the access is no easier then how will there be a perceptual shift with the mainstream?
I agree that governments will probably use SAFEnet. Why wouldn’t they use something that works?
Anyway, “plausibility” is not what I’m asking, since, as we have seen in this thread, it is inevitably interpreted as armchair speculation detached from evidence. I want evidence.
Ok, this is the issue that separates our train of thinking regardless of your claim to want evidence. Evidence is hard to produce on what we envisage as the aim of SAFE Network!
I see SAFE as a tool to replace the present internet rather than a niche product like Tor, used by a very tiny minority for their own particular purposes. How far SAFE Network gets towards that I can’t say, but that is how I view it when discussing what it is or how it will perform “out there”, what adversaries it might evoke, what benefits it offers etc. (all of which are armchair speculation).