While I see the value of SAFEnet and its superiority to the current way of doing things, I ask: why will it help lead to great discoveries? I have seen David Irvine suggest just that. While I am not doubting him, I wonder: what aspect (or who) of the current Internet is inhibiting, if at all, groundbreaking discoveries? Isn’t that what Irvine is implying? How can this be? (Note: this is really a question about the current Internet.)
I have no idea what David said, but when reading your post I’m just thinking there must be a lot of knowledge out there which is not being shared due to specific interests of powerful people/organizations/companies in keeping them secret. There might also be people who are afraid of sharing some knowledge due to the potential implications. I’m thinking out loud here, this would have sounded really impossible/unlikely to me when I was a child, but not anymore unfortunately.
Very true. In fact some research grants are now contingent on the results being published in an open to everybody type of way, instead of in paywalled journals.
But what’s stopping people from releasing this stuff anonymously? How does SAFEnet make it easier?
Did that requirement happen before or after Aaron Swartz’s case?
Regarding to access to data and research, it is the main goal of Tim Berners-Lee’s project “Solid”. It is essentially the hypertext of data.
It would be really awesome if Solid was working on the SafeNetwork.
by being 100% annonymous, encrypted and profitable. all in one
Imagine being able to release anything and BE INSTANTLY PAID FOR IT 24/7 (based on its utility) and have no way of being tracked if you don’t want to.
It will rip the evil strangleholds that small groups have over research, knowledge, money, power, government etc etc and let people share and profit equally, as they contribute to the greater good
Brilliant, just brilliant. I guess I didn’t consider the “being paid” part “based off utility.” It really sounds like a game-changer, as I am well aware of the “stranglehold” you speak of that has mangled mainstream science.
Yeah, SafeCoin rewards based on data popularity / use / “utility”
I think you are referring to the Sovryn Tech interview with David. They are talking about returns for investors and then David says that sure there will be profit but what about a kid jumping out from behind a tree in Africa with a cure for cancer. This is around the 35 minute mark in this interview. I think in that case he is not so much referring to the anonymity of the network, but the fact that people would have a lot of computing resources available via the network. Resources that are currently only available to businesses that can pay for large servers, etc.
I think the Sovryn Tech interview with David is excellent and definitely worth a listen so I recommend it to everyone. Same goes for the weekly Sovryn Tech podcast (I’ve been listening since I found the interview with David). Bryan is really on top of what’s happening in tech and makes some interesting predictions about which he is right more often than not.
The SAFE network enables people to access information that has been suppressed for thousands of years. after people gain the ability to speak certain truths without penalty, civilization will rediscover the secrets that have been held from us for so long. do you really think cancer is incurable?
Who censors theories about medical cures on the internet?
If someone had interesting ideas about curing cancer & started a blog about it, it could do very well on the current internet & safe won’t revolutionise that.
I’m sure cures for cancer will arise, but I don’t think they’re not coming to light due to any suppression on the internet, so I don’t see how Safe will help with this.
I love the safe network, but don’t see how it’ll help anyone find a cure for cancer, though an integrated collaborative open medical research platform on Safe / internet may well help move knowledge forward towards cures that won’t be found through traditional research.
This is on of the reasons I became Interested in the Safe Network. I am sure an advance app could handle data such as this.
by compiling what is known scientifically (medically). But also Including human experience,habit,and environment.
There has been a lot of legislation around the world (particularly in the US) that makes it very dangerous and difficult for any therapy to ‘claim to cure/treat cancer’. There are clearly very good reasons for that as well as some troubling implications for alternatives that can be effective but consequently get no exposure in the mainstream. I’ve no idea how much the new data paradigm will impact our approach to medicine of course. I agree that the internet is open enough that we can find the information we need if we want to, all it takes is time and effort.
There’s potentially a lot of power in the combination of anonymity and trust though. Trusted and anonymous sources could change the way we access information and potentially provide broader, higher quality and more detailed data that would be harder to find or put together on clearnet. I suppose a lot depends on how trust evolves and how responsible/well-informed the people who earn trust while remaining anonymous actually are.
Doctors/people curing cancer are being murdered for it. Clinton Cartel responsible for a lot of it. If you want a real cure for cancer, look up the budwig protocol.
Do you have any links to evidence of this? It sounds ridiculous, so it’d be good to see something to justify the belief.
The first thing I found about this was “The Budwig Diet is an unproven anticancer treatment developed by the German biochemist Dr. Johanna Budwig in the 1950s”.
If it’s been around since the 1950s, tried by many, and without people being able to prove its effectiveness in treating cancer, I’d guess it doesn’t treat cancer very well, or at least not in a predictable / repeatable way.
It would be so easy to demonstrate scientifically if it worked, and nobody has the power to prevent people doing so… not even the Clintons.
Apologies for the scepticism, but extraordinary claims require at least some evidence to be taken seriously.
What would be wrong with being critical anyway? Critical theory demonstrates the utility of people poking holes in concepts as a means to improve the pursuit of those concepts or their replacement.
i think for every disease there’s a cure maybe even a natural cure however we have to use our resources. as for cancer try “vitamin B17”
Yeah, I don’t think you understand cancer. More likely reducing intake of man made toxins than any try snakeoil answer. How many kg of perfume and makeup do women ingest for example.
Still since this thread is bumped and in reply to the OP @macroevolution I’d suggest there’s an industry waiting to happen in the management of patient data - allowing individuals control over what happens to their medical data rather than it sitting unstructured in some hospital’s data warehouse. Making that option for research available through SAFE is a clear prospect.