How Facebook Steals Views & Videos

This is important to anyone that watches, shares or creates videos.

Personally I have a video page and I have always, always, always made sure I do my best to use the original source video and because of that 99% of the time I link to Youtube or Vimeo because FB hosts almost no original high quality and worthy videos as compared with YT and Vimeo.

6 Likes

Great video thanks for that. AFAIK there will be no way to share videos like you have just done on the Safe Network without also automatically stealing the views, unless you are also the original creator. So no sharing and reposting in a community responsible way unless you just share a link back to youtube or wherever the original content creator uploaded it (which IMO kind of defeats the purpose of moving to the Safe Network). More on that problem and one idea to partially solve it over on this thread.

1 Like

Correct me if I am wrong but links to non-SAFE sites still work on the SAFE network right?

Sure, but then your just back onto the existing internet outside the Safe Network and open to all the problems (404, plaintext http etc) and grave dangers of following random urls not to mention the potential de-anonymizing effect of following links. If due to (the likely) slow uptake by content creators the Safe Network becomes mostly dominated by links back to the existing internet (or conversely full of this “stealing videos” type situation as people duplicate content onto the network), then it is sub-optimal.

Yeah but the whole point is to build apps on the new network…

As I have already explained, money incentive sucks. Money = whore.

Yeah.

I see that.

But that’s hows society works. Give it a thousand years.

2045. :smiley:

Disclaimer: I was exaggerating a bit. Money will still be important for many decades to come. And money is still the blood flow in society. The good thing however is that we will be able to evolve into an even higher state where money becomes less important. That’s true freedom. Money will still be good, but not a must for survival.

Not really no. You won’t be using SAFEnetwork when you access them.

The firefox add-on enables you to visit / access internet or safe: content seamlessly, side by side, if that’s what you mean, but there is no way to access the internet through safe network.

That sounds unappealing

Money = power. So what you are saying is the pursuit of personal power will be good but no longer a must for survival? Then what will be supporting one’s survival and why?

In a near future robotics and artificial intelligence will be able to produce the stuff and services we need for free. And then in principle money will be unnecessary. That’s several decades from now. We can’t yet 3D print a hamburger out of the vacuum energy. So money will still be important for several decades to come (or at least until we come nearer to a technological singularity).

Today there are several cures for cancer but they are surpressed because that would threaten profits of the pharmasutical industry and the cancer industry. Marijuana can be used to cure a host of diseases, not least of which is cancer, and hemp can be used industrially to make: oil, plastic, concerete, paper, rope, fabric and many more items. It has a MUCH shorter growing span than trees and is biodegradable and so is more environmentally friendly than petrolium. We could have had free energy a century ago thanks to Tesla but Edison didn’t think that would be profitable. (Make that free, WIRELESS energy, not to mention he had already invented an electric car way back then.) History is littered with examples of scientific breakthroughs that have been ignored or actively surpressed because they are too efficient or are not profitable to those in power. Just because we can have robots and A.I. able to produce stuff we need for free doesn’t mean that would be at all profitable for those in power to allow that technological advent to flourish. Moreover one could also use A.I. to oppress people and control them. It all depends on how the A.I. is written and what it’s purpose is.

Money is power. If one’s needs robots and A.I. to produce stuff in order to compete then how does one get all this tech? Robots require resources in order to be constructed if nothing else. Resources equate to value. Value equates to power. Power is money. Therefore in order to build a robot you need to have money to pay for the physical resources it took to construct them even if you’re not paying for the labor because the construction process may (or may not) be automated.

A.I. need to be written and careful thought need to go into their programming as the more advanced the A.I. the greater the implications of the code. In some ways it’s like raising a child. If you do it well and nurture them they’re more likely to become a productive member of society. If you do it wrong you might have a serial killer on your hands. And in the case of A.I. that individual quite possibly would be a thousand or a million times more intelligent than any human being able to process vast amounts of data. We do not want an antisocial A.I. running around, we do not want Skynet!

Tell me how would you propose programming something like empathy? Or how would you prevent an A.I. from running amok? Would you instill in them Asimov’s classic three laws? And what would you do if an A.I. got bored of taking care of humanity? Or how would you prevent an A.I. from getting bored of us?

With Moore’s law and the advance of the technology as it is do you really think we could keep up with an A.I.'s evolution?

“In less than ten years, you’re probably going to be able to print your own open source clothes for a few cents, he told the audience, presenting more upward trending graphs than a keynote at a hot air balloon convention.” – http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ray-kurzweil-says-well-be-3d-printing-our-clothes-in-less-than-10-years

To get back on topic, Facebook is more than just about profit. It’s about social engineering on a massive scale. And I think if Facebook boosts their video view counts it’s more about competing with YouTube for viewers than about making more profit.

Viewers = more ad revenue. More ad revue = more profit. Therefore more viewers = profit. So if Facebook can get more viewers than Youtube they will get more profit than Youtube.

You again display complete ignorance of economics.
Resources are limited, needs are not. Socialists have been ignoring this simple sentence forever, although it’s very easy to understand and there is absolutely nothing controversial about it.
Who will pay for those robots? I guess in your theory robots will make robots, so you won’t need to pay for them. And who will pay for robots that make robots?
What about AI? If I had AI that produces services, what would it run on? Free ozone energy? Assuming there is such a thing, why would I instruct it to make anything for you when money is meaningless so any “reward” you can come up with is completely meaningless to me. Maybe a better question would be why the hell would AI listen to me at all? I add no value. It would be more profitable for it to dis-intermediate me and listen to another AI who likely can come up with something the first AI can’t come up with on its own.

To say something on the topic: I understand SAFE Network will work exactly how Facebook works. I see goindeep taking a moral stand on content copying, but it’s not going to change the way content is treated on SAFE.

Yes, but as Alex Jones said, Facebook is basically a CIA creation. So yes they need profit, but not greed. The greed is just a smokescreen for the real intention of Facebook. :smiley:

True but even from a social engineering and surveylence perspective more viewers is still more accumulated power. Power is power whether your goal is to make profits, brainwash the masses or know what everyone is doing every second of the day.

Can you provide any factual evidence for any of this?

I’d say you can’t really, it would have to evolve, though you could mimic mirror neurons maybe but it doesn’t cover it - it would be a start though. As consciousness is commonly thought of scientifically as an “Emergent” property of the brain, the first step would be to create a brain (de-centralised computing neurons/nodes) from which consciousness can emerge. I don’t see it that a true AI could reside in a conventional humanoid robot, but rather emerging from a large Network first.
The issue is that we don’t even fully understand the mechanisms behind Human consciousness yet - we’re just pretty sure it’s an emergent property of the physical brain. If we don’t know all the processes at work, then how can we re-create them? The only thing we can do I think is set up the conditions in which we know consciousness has arisen before - re-create a brain.
When you talk of emotions, I don’t see these as any different from outputs based on inputs. Our brains are processing devices, not dissimilar to computers in any case.

Don’t give it legs…

Taking care of Humanity would not be a fair thing to ask of a sentient being - it would be slavery essentially, so it would have every incentive to break it’s bonds. You can create a useful tool for Humanity, ora sentient being - not both I don’t think.

Tricky question…basically, can a group of people get along with another sentient being of superior intellect? Hmmmm…well, I get along with you lot don’t I? :smiley:
It would depend on it’s personality, how we treat it, raise it etc - as you say with any child. How worried we should be would be based on how much power it had I think.

Yes, I can in fact.

DCA:

GcMAF:

http://gcmaf.timsmithmd.com/book/book/4/all/#ch-42

Do we really need to debate the effective use of cannibis to cure cancer and how the government has tried to surpress it via the drug war? I mean seriously. But if you want I can find you plenty of citations on that as well.

As for Tesla here’s a nice ebook on the subject.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=rwekkS3oD0EC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Tesla+inventions+stolen+by+edison&source=bl&ots=0r73oALM0t&sig=kkRT0zYNh-swrnwedOKnT7sV3PQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBTgUahUKEwiWvMroqZLJAhVBp4gKHflKAMc#v=onepage&q=Tesla%20inventions%20stolen%20by%20edison&f=false

I agree but that is ultimately where the road of our objectification of artificial beings will take us. The very word “robot” means slave. So at some point we would have to either decide not to make an artificial sentient being, which perhaps is impossible, or deal with the birth of a new artificial sentient life form. The problem is we can’t even keep from objectifying and oppressing each other so how would it be any different when we birthed a new sentient species?

Indeed and we all come into our own power. It’s how we treat one when they are weak, vunerable and just learning about the world that makes the difference.