So who decides its propaganda? You? Is there now a committee of experts deciding what’s appropriate for the safenet? Who are the official babysitters for my content? I think Alex Jones is an idiot, but my opinion doesn’t matter in the free information world and neither does yours.
Tell me your smart enough to craft a viewer policy that will exclude no one.
Not really sure why you are directing this at me…I said
By the way…I’m not following you here:
I’d have to disagree tbh…why would this be the case? Why in whatever world would people’s opinions no longer matter?
I see it going the otherway just as hard. When Trump says neutrality is the fairness doctrine what he is saying is you should be able to buy law. He wants the sponsor/censor filter and doesn’t want power sharing. Wants a model where people with more money (which has always been arbitrary) get to tell other people what to do. Do we want a model where we roll the dice and turn some into gods and others into slaves? The right will say these people won the contest of history it was their genes etc. I don’t see American media as liberal I see it as far right.
Keep the sponsors out, don’t allow sponsored search or theft of attention or enclosure based mechanisms, or build it so these plaforms just don’t work. I see that. To me despite people saying pay the producer I see the user paying for things after the fact if they like it. I see unsponsored search.
But to me he is more honest and genuine than the rest of sponsored media. Just the premise of prison planet- who wants a rent seeking enclosure based planet? He may be crazy but is willing to entertain most things. Its hilarious to me that he has the stance he does on 911 and he is held in highest regard by the current US president.
Yeah, apologies for not reading it through. You are correct and I see and agree w your points.
My point - which is the same as yours- is that some people may not like Alex Jones but he has a right to be heard, as do snake oil salesmen.
Grownups can decide what the want to read, my opinion doesn’t matter specific to that.
The concept of “grown ups” is overvalued.
There are plenty of kids who are wiser and smarter than the oldest of adults.
Brats and dumbasses don’t magically change just because they are an adult.
Fortunately though most get wiser as they get older and experience more in life. Mind you that doesn’t stop them from being brats and dumbasses but for most they are less so as they gain age.
Yeah, but to a point.
Right, so just to spout your meme politics for attention.
If you’d had actually read anything about the SAFE network, you wouldn’t have made this thread.
@marmalade, intentional or not, I think @goindeep makes a valid concern here and that is will the APPs on SAFE become a mirror of the current internet and do we need to be concerned.
It depends on the people who use it and how they use it. Obviously the SAFE network intrinsically values all speech equally, by nature of it’s very design - however there are people who have suggested blocklist style projects which could very easily be abused, or simply used to maintain a person or group’s isolated information bubble.
So to answer the question, yes, the SAFE network is censorship resistant, but not self-censorship proof, and there is and was zero reason to write out a James Joyce tier list of walking-talking memes to ask it.
I do like Jordan Peterson though! 
Tbh I’d rather this was a thread about his stance on political correctness or the uproar free speech creates (he created quite a stir from all sides for anyone that doesn’t know of him).
I think it’s quite likely that most services on SAFE will be censorship resistant (for the first year or two anyway). People get vocal and passionate when there’s no one there to shut them up, that creates a lot of energy/interest/views/activity blah. I’d guess that most services and apps will make good use of the USPs of SAFE in the early days and will be bastions of freedom.
Even with regard to forums etc I’m hoping most make use of systems like decorum where they can choose their own brand of trusted editing that removes spam or whatever they would want removed but nothing more. We really ought to be able to carefully select our own censor when it comes to having information we see edited. SAFE is the first opportunity we might have to realise that.
As I’m always quoting from Alpha Centauri “Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master” 
I imagine nearly all the people that are enamored by this project are more or less free speech and personal privacy advocates. A huge part of this project is to give everyone a voice. People can choose to not listen to it, but it will be there. I do think a lot of the more right leaning people would be a good starting avenue to drum up initial traffic and use of the SAFE network. Regardless of what people think of them, some of them are being unfairly targeted and their speech effectively silenced. Some have pretty big audiences as well that could really get the network moving.
This topic brings about some interesting questions, though. Obviously the powers that be would not be too thrilled with SAFE taking off. Is there a plan to combat negative press over this becoming a platform for extremists (of any type) and terrorists to upload their content that cannot be deleted? I think most here understand some bad comes with the good and would err on the side of freedom. However, when news orgs start pushing the story to the every day Joe and Jane with the message that “terrorist videos could end up on your computer if you use the SAFE network!” (Which is theoretically true, at least part of one as an encrypted piece), I could see the general public turning quickly on SAFE and rendering it a non-starter.
I’d guess at the opposite. If you can’t turn it off then really, any publicity is good publicity isn’t it? I’m sure it will go through stages of getting coverage for all kinds of reasons, but govts also need this kind of security. The US can currently turn the lights off and break all kinds of critical infrastructure in more of their allied countries than their enemies. I don’t think the states of the world like having such poor cyber security either. Even though they might not welcome SAFE at first they will probably flock to it or something like it themselves soon enough… and herd the masses with them. Privacy and security are really empowering, and everybody with any sense wants a bit of that pie really. Controversial just means more discussion, which seems like a good thing in this context - censorship resistance.
I would be very surprised if bad publicity resulted in the number of users going down or SAFE being effectively attacked in any way… Given the nature of SAFE I would expect any coverage to result in more users. Just look what happened to Silkroad when it hit the presses, or even Tor, Torrents etc back in the day. The more publicity they got the more people knew about them and the more they were used. If they have a central point of failure it is usually attacked, but if not there’s not much anyone can do except join the party. 
Meh. I dont get that from him. I find him entertaining.
Yeah and this is precisely why I started the thread. When you make changes to law. Thats a BIG deal.