I think we can offer this group of people solutions, but will we?

So right now in the political discourse many from the right, the conservatives and even some libertarians are being shut down by leftist media. I can think of many examples, here are just a few:

Milo’s twitter account was marked as un-verified and then eventually his account was shut down.

Milo’s book which had been given the green light by both Amazon and his publisher was removed.

Disney severed ties with PewDiePie and YouTube locked out some of his content after WaPo wrote a BS hit piece on him.

Mark Dice has had several videos banned and taken down.

PJW also had several videos banned and taken down.

Alex Jones claims Google de-ranked much of his content in the SERPs and that Facebook is limiting his video and page views.

Professor Jordan Peterson has his YouTube and Google accounts locked.

Natural News was banned by Google and claims it’s since being attacked by YouTube and Facebook.

I could go on.

And every time I read one of these stories I think we could offer a solution. And we can. We will have the capabilities.

But the question is will we? Or will we succumb and let our own political bias get in the way?

Whether you agree or disagree with what these people and organisations say and do unless they are advocating for violence their speech should be protected.

I know where I stand.

Where do you stand?

And this is an important question, because at the end of the day the network is the network. Humans are the key to it succeeding and if we just build another network that is better but one where humans can and will meddle with it because of their own philosophies, ideologies, morals or lack thereof than what’s the point in even trying?


Censorship will be impossible on the SAFE network. And there will be people, and prejudices, of every flavor. So a better question is will people listen to such individuals when they don’t have to? Anyone will have a voice on SAFE but likewise no one will have to listen to anyone else if they don’t want to. Self censorship will be extremely easy to rig on the SAFE network so as a result so will echo chambers. Think about how facebook and other social media works and only exposes the user to content they agree with. It’ll be like that only more so. If people actively search for content that is more unbiased they’ll get it but how many people look for people that disagree with them?


Will censorship be impossible though? What levels of power do app developers hold?

1 Like

You can make apps where the app developer can censor stuff and you can make apps where the app developers can’t. If someone makes an app and doesn’t want certain content visible in that app, nothing stops them from blocking that content. The content however is still available and can be viewed with other apps, this is the difference. If you upload a video to YouTube and it’s deleted, then it’s gone basically, but if you upload a video to SafeTube and the app developer choses to block that video from appearing in SafeTube search results, you can just use another video app to see it instead.

If some company makes a video app called SafeTube and that is where most people watches their videos, and they choose to filter what content they will allow, they will have the power to block content from users who doesn’t look around on other apps or sites.


I like how you say Milo like everybody is supposed to know meme-righters.

What is the purpose of this thread? To spout your meme politics somewhere for attention?


Not sure who milo is but I know about Alex Jones and he makes money off of fear mongering people and selling them BS just like Gwyneth Paltrow does with her “goop” brand supplements. I don’t want to tell people what to do or what to believe but I’m also half glad that these people are getting a hard time. People need proper education not BS from these conspiracy theory spewing figure heads. Sucker is born every minute I suppose


I stand with @nigel and @marmalade myself. All the examples you give are related to various disinformation, propaganda and the usual promotion of various snake oils and conspiracy theories…

…like this - which you use as your basic premise. When one searches the web to find “supporting evidence” for one’s own views, the tendency is to only read articles that support what you already think (confirmation bias). This then leads to going down the whole conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
People should check their facts, all sides, be objective and more discerning in where they get their information from really. Freedom of Speech is the most important freedom of all, which unfortunately also includes freedom to talk BS. These spreaders of BS will still be around on SafeNet and all the Comic-Book guys can still chat among themselves about their various conspiracy theories…no worries. :smile:


I’m not a fan of Alex Jones myself as in my experience he’s more fear mongering than presenting actual information. However I’ll say this much a lot of the people labeled as “conspiracy theorists” are just people who have done way more research than the average joe and know more. They’re the type that have tracked where things come from, read history, and read up ingredient lists. I dislike it when uneducated folks neglect doing their reading and then dismiss those that have as “conspiracy theorists” when in fact they are simply researchers.

How this plays into the SAFE network is obvious: You won’t be able to simply take down information, information will be easier to leak due to anonymity, and censorship will be nigh impossible. Sure you can censor a particular app but not the whole network.


Its for the purpose that I explained. Freedom of speech. It’s a very important topic for SAFE and I am using modern day examples. Had we gone back a couple years I would have used Snowden or Assange. Take whatever you want from it.

1 Like

This is what I was thinking. And this is why I asked. This thread is actually a great example because you can see the rifts here already. What happens when you have several apps that decide to silence certain groups? Does this undermine SAFE?

And this right here is the reason I say what I say. You think it’s conspiracies and many tens of thousands think otherwise. Where’s the truth maybe? Somewhere in the middle maybe, but I think I have done a great job in this thread at exposing the potential flaws of SAFE apps and that is the people behind them.

You have to expect that while the underlying network is censorship resistance, the APPs built on top will be to serve a purpose. Many will allow censorship because the forum about woman’s fashion does not want people posting about electronics or other nasty things. So these forums will be censoring some posts. Expect it and its right to do.

But some APPs like a wikileaks will not censor these things.

APPs are built for a purpose.

The underlying network will not delete/remove immutable files. So the situation is that it is possible now to build censorship free APPs and no external body can directly censor any APP.

If a person wants to upload their views on to SAFE then no one can remove it. Some APPs may not show that it exists though.


Sure. And I suppose what I am saying is that if the apps which flood the network eventually lead down the same paths as modern day ones, really, whats the purpose. And what is the answer?

The answer is that we will have a lot of what forums have become. The reason is good and proper.

But unlike the current web we will have APPs that allow contentious stuff that governments etc would love to shut down, but they cannot.

So Jones could run his own blog/vids and no one can remove them. But know that Jones will remove a lot of stuff that people post in response.


This is the part I am confused about.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. @whiteoutmashups you should create like a whistle blower style dumping of info app.

Easy. Jones copys a blog/forum APP that he sets up to run his blog/forum.

The App allows him to post his blogs and run his forum. So only he can remove (hide) content if he wanted to.

Jones only allows responses that he approves of. Anything that he cannot respond to he is likely to remove, like the callers to his radio show are filtered by the phone operator now.


FYI I am not particularly interested in Jones, lol. Just in general. Alex is quote the character though. He would of also made a good WWE host


Yea, I used Jones because he illustrates the “cannot censor” and why censor forums in one hit.

He doesn’t want to be censored, but he wants to censor others.

1 Like

The value of the SAFE Network is that it provides a broad, neutral playing field for dependable storage and communication of information which is responsive to the choices of individuals across the boards. It decouples infrastructure from the content, much like the internet has started to do, but to a much more fundamental level.

It allows the individual to store anything dependably and make is accessible or not. It allows individuals to make choices as to what type of info they wish to consume, and gives app devs and app service operators, etc., a place to act as aggregators/filters/censors between both ends of the data-producer/data-consumer pair, but leaving the end user with the most control.

The main feature, like it or not, is that the SAFE Network is designed to place in the hands of individuals and groups a rather ultimate control over their data and communication, in and out. What is often resisted or overlooked is that, at the same time the you achieve control over something, responsibility is unavoidable.

The Easter egg that the SAFE Network represents is the imposition of more responsibility on individuals for how their own reality is shaped. This is a completely scary thing for many, and makes for questions like that in the OP.