Is there an elephant in the room?


I ask “Is there” because i hope this has been resolved. I’m taking about the importance of gaining freedom of speech but not at the cost of more human suffering. Of cause i am talking about how can we decentralise the internet with out aiding the distribution of content that a majority of the world would not want to be distributed.

I am trying not to be specific about the distribution of what, for a reason, i don’t want government to dictate morality to me through propaganda and oppression and i as an individual don’t want to dictate my morality to you.

This leaves a problem, the elephant, If we don’t at least start resolve this, then i don’t believe we are responsible enough to do this.

As an analogy we could talk of the people who oppress societies as the parents. As children grow up we hope to nurture them, show them the joys and dangers of life, educate them to make good decisions and hopefully to prosper. Put aside for one minuet whether the parents of your society are good parents or not, and concentrate on us, the rebellious teenagers. No mater how bad your parents the majority of them do have some good rules which we take on board and follow in our adult lives, we also look to other peers and parents for good ways to live.

I hope you see where i am going with this, lets thrash around like rebellious teenagers, lets make this world better, however lets not forget that are parents did pass down some beneficial rules for ourselves and society.

Decentralised morality? I don’t know how these problems can be solved but if we are going to remove a small group of people deciding what’s right and wrong then maybe decentralising those decisions is a good starting point for thinking about a solution. I mean if a significant percentage of the world population believes something is detrimental to society then i have faith that they are correct.


There are for sure interesting debates which you can have about the relative harm and benefits of a whole ecosystem of decentralised systems, but ultimately it is a technological step. We’re already way past the point where anything can be done to stop this from happening.

I have trust that most people are good, and will do positive things with the increased choice and freedom they experience in education, news, commerce, finance and (ultimately) governance.


Sounds a bit defeatist, i believe technology can solve any problems it creates. Yes most people are good and most people will do good things, but that is not enough, a little poison goes a long way.

Lets look at this from an adoption success point of view. How many more people would benefit from this system if mass adoption occurs? How much easier would mass adoption be if the Media didn’t come straight out at launch with all the negative implications of a decentralized internet.

I am not saying solve the problems 100% before launch. I am saying make the problems part of what you are working on. Discuss the hard to talk about subjects as well as the nice ones. Maybe it starts with an ability to flag up troubling apps websites and the some way for the community to form consensus on whether we want that or not. I don’t know i just think this needs to be thought about as deeply as security on ever level.


It will be fluctuant and convergent, and finally find its own balance point. I believe the civilization base on decentralized internet will follow this.


Hi Leon, what exactly do you think will fluctuate and converge?


You’re mistaken, of course, because you say you believe in democracy, which is a form of collectivism in which the predatory majority overrides human rights of minorities.


I didn’t mention my political views but im interested, how is the majority automatically predatory?


We have International Conventions on Human rights in order to prevent any government or “Predatory Majority” view being able to trample on minorities’ Rights though. In effect the Human Rights of the minorities override the laws/will of any predatory majority…as it should be.
The issue nowadays is getting countries to abide by agreed Conventions and not to bow to pressure from fundamentalists to dilute anybody’s basic Human Rights.


Thanks for your input Al Kafir, do you have an opinion on the opening post?


My above post touches on what I think really - that there isn’t really an elephant in the room. I don’t agree with:

I would go along with Janitor to an extent, but I just say that his concerns are attempted to be addressed by having International Conventions that overrule National Laws in regard to Human Rights: A similar thing could be implemented for Safe by having some kind of kite - marked apps that conform to agreed fundamental values and code quality, security etc - certified by pods maybe?.
I think at some point soon, some kind of community voting structure must be utilised, in order to address these kinds of issues, alongside the Safe Foundation in the future.

I’m not sure we can, nor am I convinced that it would be a good thing even if we could (with a few caveats)… Any remedy in this area in any case would be done at app level, rather than the Safe platform level.
I don’t really find govts analogous to parents though, or rather don’t see it as a good thing for the electorate to think of themselves as children or govt as a parent.

Sounds a bit optimistic…it’s not usually the technology that causes the problems though, but who uses it and in what way.


Thank you Al_Kafir That is a fantastic idea, I am under no illusion that maid safe can eradicate this kind of material or trade, but, we have a responsibility to at least make it difficult.

While as Luke rightly said “I have trust that most people are good, and will do positive things” Even if a small fraction of a % of the worlds population are willing to cause suffering for whatever reason, they will flock to the safe network because its the safest. In the beginning its not hard to imagine these people out numbering lukes so called “good”.

I’m no angel, my views are libertarian, i feel some responsibility as an investor. Do we want to risk the possibility, even if some of you think its small, that the top three apps on the network are something nauseating? How would it make you feel to be part of that? That kind of publicity would never be overcome and the chances of mass adoption instantly squashed.


In this scenario, It may be a case that the top 3 apps not being kite marked is the best we can do I think. I’m also not sure that anything nauseating would also be popular enough to become a top app though…so not too concerned there.


Yes decentralized morality. Morality is subjective in the first place. What is anyone doing forcing their values on anyone else or trying to standardize it? Perhaps we should take @Al_Kafir’s idea and modify it somewhat: An icon for each value you or your organization wishes to declare. Then search for people and groups by values or conversely filter out by values.


I am answering this as I was PM’d to, I generally prefer to keep out of these discussions as I generally find them to engage extreme views, rather than looking for answers as opposed to blame. So here is something some folks may dislike, but a personal opinion is just that.

My belief is only in hiding nothing, can we ever hope to learn everything, so like walking outside, don’t walk on roads but be aware of them, don’t levitate to groups of materials you dislike etc.

To me this is life and it will always be, the regulatory answers are where real demons live. If humans create stuff others will see it and it its not acceptable people will say so, I doubt that highly offensive materials would chart very high. If they do then education is failing.

The network is designed to protect distribute and make available the worlds information, all of it. This will include, secrets, data on medical treatments, science papers, research results, opinions (all of them) and much much more, the consumer will make their own choice to consume though and more so than in todays mind numbing propaganda and big company manipulation of pseudo factoids. I wish for the network to allow all views and allow people to investigate everything and help those who may be in need of it.

Any other position, I think would be anti-human. To evolve we need to see and to see we need a free mind and to have a free mind we need access to all information by an educated society.

Those who portray evil or use media to force opinion or spread horrendous materials will quickly disappear if we remove propaganda and access controls. I have seen a place where books have huge black markers through them so they cannot be read, also boxes with dolls with their legs marked out etc. it’s not nice and fails a society in my opinion to neuter learning. I think we can fear our own weakness and believe others are weak, I believe people are strong, able and good , those who have issues need help, but technology cannot provide that help, unless we do want skynet!

Technology does not create evil, just as roads and books don’t, they facilitate life and if life contains elements that are grossly unacceptable then society needs to fix that. Not any inanimate object or technological brain manipulator, but society!


In answer to your general point, that Safe Network will be used for various nefarious activities and that it will be attacked because of this.
I would say that there are 2 basic retorts to rebut these attacks; firstly, that things like hard drives and cameras (and the current internet) are also used for illegal purposes and secondly that there are many more potential benefits to many more people, than potential detriments.
I think the point needs to be driven home to detractors that this is new technology and technology is neither good nor evil, but just a tool. I think this argument has to made loud and clear and often really.
Worst case scenario is the job of the police etc becomes more difficult – I think law enforcement methods will have to adapt evolve to deal with the new technology/environment: Better this than risk losing such a potential boon to humanity.
Sorry this was a reply to Stuart - just read David’s post…nice. It wasn’t me that PM’'d by the way…lol


This is aimed at earlier comments in the thread.

Those with concentrated power and wealth are not a proper minority. If such people exist and want security the only place they will find it is in an upwardly mobile healthy middle class and minimization of poverty. Any property claim by this false minority will always be overwhelmed by counter claims of arbitrary or insuficiently justifed acquisition and a demand for correction of distrbution and disgorgement. The “Collectivist” label is dishonest in that it suggests society that is not collective. ‘Concentrative’ would be a more apt concern.

OP sees paradox the paradox that unity required decentralization.


Notice that; even though there is evil; there is also light. And the force of evil is opposed by the force of light. So despite evil actors and actions; there are still light beings to counteract those forces.


No, there is no evil…just light.
Evil is a (silly) concept, whereas light is a real thing.


Thats the evil right there…thousands of years of this, then it stops…epic.


I think engaging extreme views is the only way to dissuade others from adopting them really. This provides answers and at least informs anybody interested or undecided of the issues and arguments, so they can make their own judgements. I think not engaging them allows them a free ad and can also force issues/views underground to flourish, rather than out there being rationally dismantled.