Is there an elephant in the room?

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.

1 Like

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!

7 Likes

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.

3 Likes

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

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

And why does the fact an idea is extreme make it automatically something you’d want to dissuade someone from? Also why do you assume that one taking an extreme view, whatever it might be, would be doing so out of ignorance. I think you’re right one should always examine both sides of any issue however that does not mean one is going to change one’s position or take a more centralized stance. Take my political position for example. Having examined both the “right” and the “left”, having studied multiple political and economic structures and having had numerous and extensive discussions (which I could go into detail about at another time) the short of it is my position is that all government is obsolete and pretty much the same regardless of the position on the political spectrum. The more educated I became the more extreme my viewpoint became.

Moreover why do you think people should not adopt extreme viewpoints? Why do you support a conformist and standardizing mentality of ideas? Are you frightened by an idea of it strays too far from the status quo?

Also keep in mind engaging and challenging ideas only works with someone who enjoys having their ideas challenged. Someone who does not and who is sensitive to criticism would react the opposite way and would be repelled, perhaps even driven underground, by constantly having their ideas challenged and debated.

1 Like

Hi Blindite2k, thanks for entering the discussion. Im not sure who you are asking but i would like to be clear about my thoughts. I believe 100% in freedom of speech on any subject. Without complete freedom to say/write whatever we believe then how can we inform, break prejudice, engage, debate.

The word evil has been thrown about a bit. I don’t see any benefit in being judgmental, we are all products of our environment.

Hi David, thanks for replying to my PM and engaging in this discussion. I am not talking about censorship or making judgement in any way other than to find some way to come to a decentralized consensus on whether or not an apps/websites shows/causes suffering to a vulnerable person or persons. Can we all agree that this is worth doing?

2 Likes

I think I can agree that it might be beneficial to have a kite mark system that apps can apply for voluntarily, checked by a Foundation/community recommended pod or something along these lines. Kitemarked apps will probably be more likely to become popular apps, so developers wouldn’t mind paying/donating to the system. This is just a vague idea to think about, i haven’t explored in depth the feasibility or any inherent problems as I’m not a coding person.
I can agree on the de-centralised consensus, but probably for electing members to the Foundation or big community issues such as “what should the fundamental characteristics of an approved app be” and the like but not in approving apps directly. In any case a user consensus will in fact develop in regard to how popular apps become, as they will be voting with their feet, just by using or not using them - a reputation system really.

It doesn’t and I didn’t say it did… I said the only way to dissuade others from adopting extreme views was by debating them openly.
Personally though, I think that some extreme views have harmful consequences in the real world: I recognise that this is subjective opinion and I am making ethical judgements, but these are also informed by reason.

Yes, it is not a panacea, and doesn’t work on the closed or bloody minded or indoctrinated…
However, if I see views as harmful then I will challenge them as I see fit for the reasons I gave; I do not need any consensus whatsoever and need nobody’s approval. If anybody’s sensibilities get offended along the way, then this is way down the list of my concerns tbh. Freedom of speech is the next in the list after the Golden Rule in my book.
Anyway, back to the topic of elephants in rooms, can you see the harmful extreme view in this instance? Young men are being brain-washed with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu’ran - what do you ascribe the underlying problem to?
What I mean is that we are fighting ideas here and we can only fight them with better ideas, we cannot bomb ideas from peoples’ minds, we have to debate and dissuade.
Islamic State
Cheers

Darkness/evil/ignorance (call in what you will) is actually the absence of light/good/knowlede. A concept that is anything but silly, and the reason the safe network will thrive IMHO.

The problem with “evil” is that it is overloaded. I think it has validity, and I do use it. An alternative is “unconscious”.

Making something conscious - available to awareness - certainly helps people avoid being abused by others. Think about it, so much harm is predicated on keeping someone in the dark, which dis-empowers them.

Since SAFE is a means of making it hard, extremely hard indeed, to keep things in the dark, it has a “good” heart, IMO! Though like any tool it is open to exploitation for nefarious (like that word @Al_kafir :-)) purposes. Also, it will have its ability to shed light threatened by misinformation.

I support efforts to add signals (kite marks, qualities/values etc.) that help people make informed (aware) decisions about their interactions with SAFE, and to publicise what is acceptable to them. Two sides of the same coin.

1 Like

I moved 4 posts to a new topic: Does democracy lead to a “predatory majority”?

I didn’t mention darkness, ignorance, goodness or knowledge, only evil and light and I stick by my assertion that evil as a concept, is indeed silly at best and harmful at worst.

These are completely different things and not synonymous with each other, therefore I can’t call it what I will. Listing opposite words doesn’t help to make “Evil” a sensible concept any more than saying, witch/wizard or up/down does.
You’d have to explain what your theory of evil is and how it works, in order to demonstrate it is not a silly idea.

I was fearful of an elephant on the room, turns out there is a herd of them. Forget your good, evil, darkness and light.

Im talking about suffering, emotional and physical pain. Yes those chemical reactions within our body’s which can make live unlivable. No hocus pocus just plane nature, physics and chemistry.

We have to build on top of what has gone before taking what was beneficial and leaving behind what is bad. I urge you to better the world in a way without casualty.