Is censorship always bad?

Do you want that power to shift towards people involved in heavy criminal activities?

I’m an anarchist. I don’t support the existence of government in the first place and subsequently don’t care one way or the other. The concept of “crime” is as obsolete as the concept of government. If you’re talking about outright antisocial behaviors like rape or murder I’d say there are voluntary ways of organizing and dealing with such individuals but do I care one way or another about the “legality” of such things? No. How could I not? Hmmm off the top of my head? I see cops shooting innocent people, corrupt politicians getting away with literal murder, homeless people being harrassed, and people doing weed in order to treat medical conditions being locked up in jail whereas rapists and murderers go free. Obviously society doesn’t care about whether a behavior is antisocial, they just care about it’s profit margin. So no I couldn’t really care at all if the power shifts towards people involved heavily in crime. Frankly I think it might be better if it does. At least maybe society would start interacting voluntarily then, or at least be honest with itself. So far as I’m concerned “government” is no different than the mob. Actually I think the mob would be preferable, the mob doesn’t care who you sleep with, whether you do drugs or not, what business you engage in, all it cares about is whether it gets it’s cut. It’s the same as government, and yes ultimately just as obsolete, but at least it’s honest about what it is. At the end of the day we don’t need any kind of authority ruling over us. We can organize and iinteract freely perfectly fine. We don’t need rulers.

We need government as much as we need a mafia extortion and protection racket, as it’s pretty much the same thing. So why should I care about the balance of power tipping towards that of crime? Crime/Law is a function of power. Why should I care about the balance of power tipping away from government? If anything that would be a good thing.

If someone was being hurt my instinct wouldn’t be to call on government (the cops). My instinct would be to help and protect them myself. And failing that I’d want to organize with others I trusted to accomplish said protection of those in need. Appealing to some third party dubious authority would be the absolute last thing I’d want to do.

1 Like

We need law and order until we have things like artificial general intelligence that will replace much of both governments and laws. And the SAFE network is a step towards such AI society. A technological singularity may be just a few decades away from today.

AI development within black military projects can be very dangerous. And the SAFE network may be a part of the public society outcompeting secret and dangerous projects within governments behind the public scene. But organized crime can also take advantage of the SAFE network, so it’s like a double-edged sword.

About the SAFE network, I say: bring it on! :earth_americas:

1 Like

I disagree. As I said I don’t believe in the concept of law or the state in the first place. What gives any man the right to rule, to initiate force, over any other? Statism is an extremely dangerous religion and the state a most violent deity. And how would replacing real people with an A.I. be any better? Why is it okay for A.I. to initiate force against a populace or individual? If your answer is “majority rule” then the A.I. is nothing more than mob mentality and again it comes back to “What gives any man the right to initiate force against another?”

Here we can agree and which is why I am grateful the SAFE network is open source and will remain so.

If anything I’d be in favor of polycentric law based on a series of voluntary contracts. Which is what the bitlaw project is about.

No, that would be horrible. Ray Kurzweil says that we will enhance ourselves along with the exponential technological progress. We humans need to remain in control even as the AI reaches higher capacities than us today. The AI will serve the people, not the people being some slave to a Skynet.

Then a voluntary society would be required. You don’t want to replace government with an A.I. Here you might want to read up on these.

Also speak for yourself. I have no desire to become a cyborg. Maybe have an awesome suit but no implants please.

1 Like

This is getting off topic but I agree sort of. No horrible implants for me. I will wait until the technology becomes smart matter, computronium, making my body made of smart atoms. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ooookay then. But I think we’re in agreement. No Skynet. So why are we in such disagreement over government? They’re essentially the same thing and where one goes the other follows. Essentially the question is not human vs technology but rather coercion vs voluntarism. The technology will follow the form of the desired philosophy, the A.I. will learn what we teach it.

On one level censorship is ridiculous, but for practical reasons I think we still need governments to prevent extreme forms of hate speech. It has to be law and order, because voluntarism requires a more mature society or new information technology, such as the SAFE network.

Since the web is already so common today, the SAFE network will at least in the beginning be completely voluntary even on a practical level. The internet is actually in practice something people more or less have to use when it comes to banking and communication. So the SAFE network is a good way of testing full freedom of speech in a separate environment so that we gradually can develop ways how to deal with that using new decentralized software.

Isn’t this truly a WT■ moment? Considering you’ve been a member of this forum for years, I can’t understand how it could escape your attention that SAFE is specifically designed to prevent such things. It’s not a “maybe” or a “what if” but the explicitly stated design.

So: yes, tragic as it may sound, SAFE will indeed pose such dangers to our civilization; woe is us :kissing_cat:

By the way, I challenge you to look up some facts about NSA’s track record about detecting criminal activities. EDIT: here’s some help for your research

2 Likes

AI will learn what we tell it? Good luck with that if its actual AI. Progress will take us to AI and AI will take us to SAI. We already have things that are superior human intellect on some things. And even on things like recognizing cat breeds. Creative machines seem to be here. Its just the worry that ego and will be emergent in higher functionality.

“Extreme forms of hate speech” as an excuse for censorship is like saying you’re a little bit pregnant. You either have free speech or you don’t. Moreover SAFE will eliminate censorship and even allow for “extreme hate speech” however one might define that. So really one must wonder what you’re really after? If there is censorship then you by definition are not living in a voluntary society.

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire.

1 Like

Sticking to ideologies by the letter often disregards that they exist to make life better; the moment the opposite happens, we have a problem. “Freedom” is often used as an excuse to hurt others.

Why is freedom the ultimate goal? It sounds not only arbitrary, but also simplistic. Yea, it is important, but so are a lot of other things and, surprise, they often conflict. You elevate one above the rest, and you just invented your own particular flavor of demagogy.

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: Alt Media Illegal in the U.S. = More Need for SAFE

Yes, yes it is. But it’s that freedom to choose to do good or bad that makes society better. Forcing everyone to do good by some particular standard doesn’t make society better. Surrendering one’s personal power to a given individual or group makes society as a whole less secure. What betters society is that each individual is free to choose and is responsible for those choices even if they don’t nessesarily make others happy. Morality is subjective. We all have the right to our own moral perspective and self determination. The goal is not to keep people from being hurt. If people are hurt they are free to defend themselves or seek other recourse. The goal is to interact voluntarily and not initiate force.

Responsibility implies accountability implies restriction of freedom.

It must be, because otherwise there is no purpose. Freedom is only recognized in the presence of coercion. However, the powerful can defend themselves; we don’t need to worry about them. They are more likely to be offenders, using ideologies to hide behind them when abusing their power. The weak, however, can’t protect themselves. This means that no ideology is useful unless it aims at defending the powerless.

Edward Snowden talks a lot about this idea, and rightfully so. For an example, listen to the last 4-5 minutes of this video, where he seems to also hint on SAFE, or at least the general idea behind it. EDIT: Even better, from the Amnesty International website: Edward Snowden: ‘Privacy is for the powerless’.

Like what?! “Just suck it up!” :pouting_cat: ???

Isn’t that like saying the only reason people are good is because they’re forced or obligated to? Then how do you explain random acts of kindness without any expectation of reciprical compensation? How do you explain people who just peacefully interact with one another out of empathy and the desire to peacefully coexist?

No they can’t but did it ever occur to you that there are those that might choose, voluntarily to defend the helpless?

Your first statement here is true, more or less, the second statement is a false assumption. Being able to defend yourself does not equate to being a psychopath. Anymore than being helpless equates to having empathy. Just because I am well armed and am no longer the target of muggers, murderers, thieves and raiders does not mean I’ve suddenly turned into Jack the Ripper. And just because someone is unarmed does not mean they won’t smother you with the nearest pillow or drop poison in your drink so they can make off with your boots.

Find a champion, post negative reputation about the individual within the community, utilize the legal system if there is one, lodge a complaint with the arbitor/modirator, appeal to the Don/Mafia boss, in short get help about having been wronged. They have had force initiated against them and clearly have been wronged.

I’m saying “freedom” as a concept doesn’t come up unless it is, or there is a real chance it would be, violated. It’s the idea that darkness requires the concept of light to exist first.

Reading it back, I believe I was indeed not clear enough. I didn’t mean to suggest the powerful should be offenders, but that they are the only ones who have the opportunity to use ideologies as weapons. Ideologies are like a gun without bullets in the hands of the powerless.

Are you suggesting the helpless should depend on charity just because you don’t like the idea that society as a whole can make rules to defend them?

… is the point where I’m suddenly confused. First you’re saying “freedom above all,” but now you’re suggesting it’s okay to have a legal or pseudo-legal system that puts limits on that freedom by force and/or intimidation… What am I getting wrong?

How do you explain grassroots movements, say Occupy Wall Street or NoDAPL for example, then or project SAFE for that matter? The pen is mightier than the sword. If only the elites supposidly have the power to wield ideologies how is it so many of the huddled masses have rallied and organized into such effective protests, open source movements, and cooperatives?

I’m suggesting they aren’t any more entitled to initiate force than anyone else is. Rely on charity, trade, inginuity, I don’t care, just don’t initiate force and violence.

What you’re missing is the difference between natural (aka common) law and possitive law. To be brief natural law is based on the natural laws of nature, hence the name. The idea is one is born with certain inalieniable rights, rights like free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to seek happines, etc etc, basically if you can naturally do it without initiating force it’s probably on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Bill of Rights. That’s where such documents derived from, natural law. Possitive law on the other hand comes from the idea of man made or artificial law, where man assembles into a government of some kind and declares legal edicts. From his we get things like corporate maritime law and the “person” or legal strawman here. Keep in mind I am grossly simplifying here for brevity’s sake but that is the gist of it. My point is it’s not inconceivable to have a legal system based on natural law or voluntary action. I don’t personally think it’s nessesary but it may indeed exist. The main crux though still remains that the wrong doer is the one that initiated force. Two men may call each other idiots all day but the moment one throws the first punch that man becomes the offender and the other the defender.