Interesting article on Content Moderation companies contracted out to Social Media sites. Could this ‘Grandma Effect’ threaten the widespread adoption of the Safe Network? Or, stating it another way: If one is unable to reap the benefits of SafeNet because of the proliferation of ‘noise’, what good will it be?
Well the internet and soon to be safenet are a whole lot more than the social media sites. With the billions upon billions of web pages out there on the internet I’d say there is plenty of noise. And we cope alright with all these unfiltered and largely uncensored web pages.
So like SAFEnet we will cope fine.
Socal media on SAFEnet will likely still be moderated in some form. Just because noone can delete your uploads does not stop social media sites using MDs (mutable data) to allow a form of moderation.
So SAFEnet like the internet can have its facebook with all its rules and moderation/censorship and also can have largely uncensored “social media” sites/forums.
The big difference is that unlike the internet there can be uncensored content that authorities cannot control, people will finally have free speech. Only if the reader chooses to censor their readings or if the poster chooses a moderated safesite will content be “censored”
Not really, that’s one reason so many of us are looking for alternatives like Safenet.
“Only if the reader chooses to censor their readings or if the poster chooses a moderated safesite will content be ‘censored’”
The reader will be able to choose a setting in the browser that will cause him to land on moderated websites only? Grandma will like that, for sure.
Whats the problem in being able to chose what you prefer? You miss that you will have a choice. You will be able to chose to what degree you want to see content and what kind of content you do not want to see. That’s freedom.
I meant the ordinary person copes with uncensored web pages, and so when SAFE provides them it should be fine with most.[quote=“VaCrunch, post:3, topic:12152”]
The reader will be able to choose a setting in the browser that will cause him to land on moderated websites only?
What I was thinking was an APP the user runs on their computer that applies personal preferences to what they view.
The real problem for so many people out there, their experience of the internet stems from social media & google search. They only view the internet from within those sites and links they provide and fail to see that the internet is ever so much more than social media/banking/email and is much more than web sites/pages too. The web itself is only a part of the internet.
Perhaps for the very reason that they are “moderated”. If we truly want maximum adoption of Safenet we should always consider of what the other 95% (not like readers of this forum) find useful and preferable.
And is why I said before
I still see a problem. A user can do what you suggest (running an app) right now but it is not very effective for many (Grandmas). Too much subjectivity involved in the selection process of acceptable websites or their description when using filtering software. Also, an extra step than many view as too much trouble.
Today, a purveyor of questionable material has to pay a repetitive cost to keep providing it (monthly cost of web server). With Safenet he will only have to pay a one-time “put” fee, thereby increasing one’s chances of “bumping” into this material during web surfing.