I grew up on unfiniltered internet. Did I saw crazy weird things some of them I wish to unsee? Yes. Do I feel it made my chilhood worse in any kind? No. It is part of the learning process same as learning not to touch hot stove.
THe very fact that the SAFE network touts itself as uncensorable means that we will have child, animal and rape “porn” on it very quickly indeed.
Stuff that is NOT quickly available at a casual browse of the present internet. I’m sure if you know where to look…
Alongside the Nazi hate sites and religious nutters that will be as readily accessible on SAFE as @happybeing 's mouth organ masterclasses.
We will have mountains of shite to go through to find a genuine whistle(or harp)-blowing site. And remember just as one persons terrorist is another’s brave freedom fighter/Defender of the One True Faith, one person’s whistleblower is another’s degenerate subversive looking to topple Our Way of Life.
I am quite sure you are a decent well-rounded individual and your exposure to some dodgy content (I paraphrase here) did you no harm. Sadly not all kids will be as mentally strong or (and Im guessing here) raised to have some sort of clue of “right” vs “very wrong” as you seem to have been lucky to have been.
It’s opt-in naturally so I am pretty confident that if I could have a hand in developing filters that could be proven to be of some use, great rewards would follow hard work. No-one could force you to use these filters anyway.
Unfortunately objective news is not possible.
One reason is because even a simple event has thousands of facts (at least) - are you going to read a whole book about every news story? No. You need somebody to pick out the most relevant facts for you and present them in a way you understand and can read without getting bored out of your brain, and this is always subjective. Even before that there are hundreds of thousands of potential news stories every day, probably millions even - which ones are worth writing about or reading? This is and always must be a subjective decision.
Also the news often precedes the facts. This is especially true during war, terrorist attacks etc. People know something has happened and it is newsworthy, but nobody really knows wtf is happening or maybe there are multiple competing narratives each with their own ‘facts’ which may or may not be true.
I think you are underestimating the power of AI. If an EV’s small brain located under the hood can analyze traffic conditions, speed and direction of all entities in its field of view, read traffic signs and lights and obey all the laws of the locality, then make decisions on the car’s response to all these inputs in a fraction of a second, surely a dependable AI news source whose size and power would not be so constricted could be developed.
Best defence is to have enough non-problematic content and make the network big and strong before anyone tries to attack on behalf of problematic content.
I am not against filtering, but we should not try guarantee it. I think some kind of API for filters would be enough, let everyone create, download or buy filter if they want one.
AI can help with comparing different sources of information, fake detection, but making biased news unbiased, not in the power of current AIs I am afraid.
Good luck with that… You are 100% correct but also 100% deluded (sorry!) if you think that is ever likely to happen. Once word of “uncensorable” reaches the people I will now call InternetDregs, we will have plenty data to store - almost all of it unsavoury (IMHO) in the eyes of most folks. And it’s “most folks” we need to appeal/sell this to. So filtering - and it will be fairly crude to begin with - MUST be available at an early stage. This links back to multiple earlier threads from years back, I will try find them and post here.  
Nobody is guaranteeing filtering - I simply contend that it will be a "most-desired" feature and some users (especially parents) will regard it as "essential". Done right it will be a very profitable area to be in.
Yep fully agree on that, sadly
So what would be the desired ratio of kitten to pussy pics, then?
Sorry -couldn’t resist. I can resist anything except the temptation to make a cheap puerile joke…
Will the K/P ratio be one of our KPIs?
I’m not so sure. AI, eventually, might be able to discern. Fact checking, with all the available sources online, should be doable, and applying those facts to a reasonable judgment allocation should be possible also. If the AI entity is not able to reach a threshold of certainty, it would simply not render a judgment in that case.
is doing a lot of work here.
Not saying its not possible, this IS the impossible network after all, but we will need filtering of some sort at a fairly early stage.
If AI could fact-check reliably is a subtly different question to whether AI can ascertain what is “true”, and generally things get thorny when truth is thrown into the mix…
I think a neat solution with no AI-saviour involved could be crowd-sourced falsehood-checking, with a ridiculously strict definition of how to “prove” a falsehood. The falsehood could be reviewable and counter-checkable by other falsehood-checkers, with yearly voting on the rules of how to define and prove falsehoods by the falsehood-checking community. And I’m thinking of things like primary source material that show genuine falsehoods with a high level of probability.
Part of the idea is - we would, presumably, like humans to care about falsehoods, and reality, and things like that so all open documentation, free (speech) software, in the hopes that other groups might engage in similar activities. A name I threw out before here on the forum for this idea was as falsehood-checkers falsehood-checking falsehood-checkers, or 3FC.
With perpetual versioned public sites and linked data, I’m imagining a clickable button at the top of say a new york times article which changes to the highlighted falsehood-checked version… With the “proof” clickable and inspectable by all. If anyone wants to steal this idea and code it up, please go ahead!
Maybe rather than traditional marketing we could have app contests. A first, second, third prize for apps we want and need on the network.
Signal like messaging
Filters for the browser
Developer tools that make building on Safe Network easier.
These are just a few that come to mind.
Even if a developer does not win the prize they can still post their app and let the market decide.
How do we make this a developer first network?
I think that’s a great idea! You get publicity and apps that way. Good for the network, devs and users.
It would be good to see some upnto date docs on APIs/libraries to see what is possible on the test net at this stage.
This may need to be a community-assisted project, as the devs will be busy bug-fixing and adding other essential features to get us to Maxwell. Obviously it can’t be community-led but we may need to muck in together, trawl Github and help extract the documentation ourselves.
Unless the price moons and the company can afford to bring in technical writers to help produce this material.
Yes. Marketing includes initiatives like this, and is about so much more than advertising. A dApp Building contest was part of the original marketing proposal I shared about a year ago. I paired the concept with a hackathon b/c I thought it would promote engagement, idea sharing, and community-building. Plus a Hackathon would provide an opportunity for Safe Devs to give tutorials and answer questions in a time-bound manner. The details can be tweaked, but I still think something like this would be a great initiative
You are awesome! Thank you for the work.
Speaking of putting apps first, perhaps someone should reach out to Parler execs, since they have been blackballed. If we could get them on board and developing their app for the Safe Network it would bring a lot of publicity to the project. Not to mention, they have several millions of members they can contact when it goes live.
This is a good thread, and I do appreciate many of the points that people are raising. However, some of my biggest fears about the future of SAFE network are playing out right here in this thread, and something I have been concerned about for some time.
Please know that I am not a die-hard capitalist by any means, and I have no interest in invoking the quagmire of capitalism vs socialism as a political discussion. From an economic perspective, I think there is objective evidence that demonstrates that for many/most market segments where rational consumers can make a choice, a relatively free market with competition both drives innovation and produces overall better value/choice for consumers. In this regard, it generally also produces better overall results for society regardless of the overarching capitalist vs socialist economic/political constructs.
Unfortunately, competition doesn’t tend to produce the best rewards for content producers. In fact, as evidenced by the investment community in general, outright monopoly making seems to be the actual goal of the world’s champions of capitalism. I have seen many leading venture capitalist and investment titans outright say that “competition drives the profit out of everything”.
With that in mind, it has concerned me a bit how eager the SAFE community seems to be to annoint a particular project as being the app as being the answer for a particular feature-set. I think it is in the SAFE communities benefit to foster competition between developers that recognize that users will pick the winners, and the market will determine the best apps.
I also thought one of the main tenets of SAFE was supposed to be data interoperability? If I create public message posts for the purposes of social networking, then I should be able to choose from hopefully what are many social networking apps and grant them access to my content and migrate/integrate my data between apps as I choose. In this way, apps will compete more on the best user experience they provide to users for particular tasks/features rather than the closed data islands they rely on today. In all honestly, my cynical nature sort of believes this is a pipe-dream and that competition to win with regard to achieving market-share for applications, that developers will revert to the sort of proprietary/closed data schemes to protect their market share that we see now. I hope that doesn’t happen, but I think human nature will undermine this.
This is a serious and very nuanced issue. How the SAFE network encourages or discourages competition and data interoperability will be a key element in how it evolves and ultimately whether it meets it’s lofty goals. I am not pretending to know the answer, but I have seen enough abuses of monopoly power and how it corrupts human nature to remain skeptical that planned monopolies produce the best results.
If SAFE network is going to be successful, once it launches, a signal that it will be successful would be the thousands of application developers around the world that will start innovating on the platform to create user experiences to solve problems. When and if that happens, many developers will choose to tackle the same kinds of information, tasks, feature set, etc., that other’s are, but in some regards with different user experience, task flow, etc.
Free Speech, Fact Verification, Information Quality and Reputation
What ultimately has been missing from the Internet from it’s inception has been the integration of fact verification and reputation. Information publishing used to be tightly controlled by a set of gatekeepers who largely controlled who and what information could be broadly shared across societies. Once again, the centralized power of these gatekeepers while it produced some benefits, like all power, enabled many abuses. The emergence of the Internet was supposed to be a grand thing, allowing everyone to have a voice. Free speech! Of course, that exposed us to the dark side, outright lies, hate speech, conspiracy theories, etc.
I am not a fan of the people encouraging content filtering and moderation as limits on free speech. While I tacitly agree there should be legal limits placed on free speech in general with regard to outright hate speech or speech that encourages violence, etc., content filtering/moderation has demonstrated that it tends to create echo-chambers where like-minded people tend to filter out the content they don’t agree with. It creates islands of information whether competing ideas and opinions never have to compete directly with each other. Once again… human nature. I don’t think human beings really like competition much… it makes us too uncomfortable, and makes us fell less safe, even if competition in the larger context produces better overall results.
I think what has been missing from the Internet is that it undermined the good elements associated with having gatekeepers on information; fact verification, peer-reviewed quality of information standards, and verification of source reputation. All of these things are now possible in a data-connected open network. When we gave everyone a voice on the internet without conventions for associating claims (fact, reputation), we displaced knowledge, expertise and reputation, and made it very difficult for information consumers to make informed choices about the trust they should give content published on the Internet.
One of the better examples of an existing Internet property that has had to try to bridge this gap is Wikipedia, where a single page is supposed to represent a source of truth. And yet, we have seen the battles that go on between competing contributors to try to shape that truth to various agendas (economic, political, etc).
A better approach (or at least something that can help contribute to a greater degree of free speech and the ability of a consumer to make decisions on information trust) is to allow content to be linked to verifiable claims. Those claims might be counter-opinions by other people who have been verified to have greater expertise on a subject (due to verified experience or education), verified certificates of authenticity with regard to claims related to information produced by 3rd parties, or fact-checked claims provided by information watchdogs, etc.
To summarize, I believe the better choice to improving the quality and benefit of free speech while also protecting society from the dark side is about giving users better tools for determining the quality of information and allowing them to make decisions of trust, rather than reverting to centralized gatekeepers.
Not having read back the topic, can you point to the specifics that are concerning you?
Just reading your reply I don’t want to get political either, so I won’t. I don’t agree with your assessment of the relative merits of socialist and free market approaches (IMO both have demonstrated both critical failings and their potential to benefit humanity), and will leave it there, because if I leave the politics side I agree with the main things that I think you are saying.
So I agree that we don’t want centralisation, gatekeepers etc (and don’t see why you’re concerned about that - hence my query above) and I agree that interoperability is very important.
I’ve done a lot of work to realise both these goals on Safe Network with code, networking and advocacy (here and elsewhere), and all I’ve seen is support from the community for those efforts (so again am not sure why you are concerned this is being neglected).
Just want to clarify a few things:
this post wasn’t in any way direct at you @happybeing. It wasn’t directed at anyone, and I specifically chose not to point to any specifics because I didn’t want it to become confrontational. I was replying to the overall thread and community in general, not you personally.
I have been monitoring this community (and dipping my toe in occasionally) for about 4 years now, and my post above is based on an impression that I have developed over a lot of content I have seen over that time. These concerns have developed because I see some inherent conflicts in some of the goals being associated with the SAFE network vs. behaviors that we know and see that exist in other projects, and the Internet as a whole and technical communities in a broader sense.
I think I have already provided one tangible generic example of where my concerns lie with regard to the goals vs behavior regarding SAFE network:
Capitalism advocates for free markets. Free markets are based on competition. Competition reduces profitability. Capitalists want profits. Capitalists pursue monopolies.
This is the very definition of hypocrisy. Doesn’t the same problem exist within the SAFE network. The goals are stated as data interoperability, open communication, user data privacy/control and security. Are developers drawn to the opportunity to build apps on SAFE network really going to be good stewards of these goals when we know the behaviors of just about all the leading technical companies and application developers currently pursue strategies directly counter to these? Are developers really going to ensure data interoperability in the apps they develop for SAFE if it means users can easily switch to someone else’s XXX (e.g. music) application at will with no friction because all of their data instantly moves with them?
The purpose of my post was not to try and have anyone declare an answer as “yes” or “no”. I don’t think that is possible. It was to help drawn attention to these dangers and promote a healthy ongoing discussion within the SAFE community to encourage people to continue to support the goals of the network, even as they pursue individual opportunity and competition with other developers. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.