Now that we’re integrating video streaming the obvious question is to possibly create a youtube clone. However I was wondering if we might port something like MediaGoblin with is already open source and doubles both as a picture and video gallery.
It currently uses MondoDB and SQL so I’m not sure how flexible that would be for porting to SAFE, which is why I’m posting here. But at the very least it might be a good starting point for app developers to take some inspiration from the code itself.
It seems to me that an ideal SAFE business, of whatever content type, is one that applies a kind of “bit mask” to its clearnet equivalent. Some examples:
A search engine that only shows what Google filters out.
A video site that only shows what Youtube removes.
A shopping/market site that only sells what Amazon or Ebay prohibit.
You get the idea?
I don’t want to be limited to just what the clearnet prohibit. I want to be able to compete with the clearnet. You ask why bother selling the same product that Amazon, Google or Youtube provides or other such services? Because on SAFE one wouldn’t be tracked. On the clearnet your entire shopping history would be tracked and catagorized. On SAFE you can buy anything, legal or illegal, and no one is the wiser. Even if someone is buying stuff that’s totally legal and that they could get on the clearnet as well there is still reason to use SAFE in that they wouldn’t be tracked, traced, and have their entire life history on file on some corporate or government database.
However yes having a filter would be useful. It would be interesting to see everything that Google or Amazon had banned all lined up neatly and made available.
This might not be a good idea as many people would see the safenet as source of all this potential “bad” stuff and could give the safenet and maidsafe a bad image. I’m not saying you should also remove or prohibit everything google or other big companies prohibit but making a website based solely on that would probably be damaging to whatever facilitated it(safenet). Although a website without moderation could be popular with a lot of people provided some content was hidden to those who didn’t want to see it.
Indeed. And there’s nothing wrong with selling and delivering pizza over SAFEnet, but (I claim) it has to have a SAFE twist to it. No VAT (or GST downunder), and with whatever “extras” you want.
I’d go for the website without moderation. But honestly dude there’s too much emphasis on this “possibly damaging the networks reputation” shtick. It’s quite probable someone will make such a site. If I had access to all the censored data I probably would just for the sake of countering censorship. But in all honesty an uncensored and unmoderated site with the proper filters would most likely be of more value than one that strictly focused on just what has been censored. Still as I said before, having a filter that specifically looks for that censored content could be handy.
The problem there is you’d be losing profit because more than likely you’d be paying those taxes in order to buy the ingredients to make the pizza and/or pay for gas.
I agree with you completely, though I think having the users of the site decide what should be filtered out or made harder to access unintentionally could be better than a program or algorithm as people would probably be better at determining what is “bad”.
I would like to see an entire economy built out from SAFEnet that includes all such factors of production.
You know here’s a thought. Add a percentage to whether something is “good” or “bad” or whatever other adjective the user wants to tag something with. I mean sometimes I run across something that’s “meh a little annoying” or “a wee bit funny” or on the end of the scale it’s “Omg get it off me! Get it off me!” or “Can I get this in a laminated poster version?” So say 0% is “Assign no value.” And 100% for “Good” would be like “Always show this in my feed.” or whatever. There would need to be different operations for full 100% power but the percentages could modify the amount one would apply the affect. So say something was “Bad” 100% would be to ban the content from ever showing up. Or say you assigned 100% to something funny. The computer would interpret that as “This thing makes the user roll around on the floor laughing so hard his sides hurt.” And would look for more of that, or similar when the user searched for “funny” stuff.
As I mentioned in other posts: I think that the crucial move for PR purposes and mainstream adoption is not to push what is fringe, but appealing use cases for the mainstream.
Otherwise you are risking to label the SafeNetwork as the “new TOR” as a playground for criminals, when it is actually way way bigger than that.
Compelling use cases are healthcare CRMs and especially EMR, and robust B2B solutions.
I was thinking about this recently myself but in terms of buying/selling goods or services. People and all past, current and foreseeable future systems of civilisation have a trust based system. An element of trust between the people and the government is always needed to function and breaks down when the system starts failing. If an algorithm to accurately gage trust, morals and popularity of content (ideas, good/services,companies/people) was possible it would be very interesting.
Also I imagine that a video site in the Safe Network would become a gigantic monopoly quite fast, becoming a one stop shop of all full length “pirated” movies, homemade movies, and of course, all kind of porn.
It could be Stage6 reincarnated, but this time it might make torrent downloads completely obsolete.
There would be no actual differentiator between sites, as all sites would allow anything because there is no regulation or DCMA take down threats. There would be no difference of speed between sites, as all use the same infrastructure.
The first site might become the dominant forever.
The question is trust in whom or what? SAFE doesn’t get rid of trust. We as human beings will still form relationships. We just won’t be forced into government based hierarchies as much. Honestly I’m not that impressed with “civilization” as it is. It’s a mad house and you can have it. Also don’t presume to say that trust based systems, or especially imply trust in government, is required for all “foreseeable” futures. I’ll bet you money that there are those, myself included who can see a world without such limitations.
Why is it needed? And yes it breaks down and that I say is a good thing.
Indeed especially since trust, morals and popularity are all subjective values. The app would need some kind of quiz or test to initialize it to access the user’s preferences as to what they thought was trustworthy or moral and what they particularly liked. Also there’d have to be a consent setting of some sort as to whether the user wished to release information about their preferences, in part or in whole, in order for the app to do comparisans to find out general popularity, morals and trust levels.
God I miss stage6, that site was awesome. But yes that might very well be the case. However that would require massive internal search, filters and curration to be of any use. Think of youtube, most people go there and search for what they want. The competition might not be in site speed or in content availability so much as in curation efficiency and UI design. Also consider there might be speciality sites which might focus on a particular kind of content or even charge a fee for access to their content if they have original content being produced. Also keep in mind even on Tor not all sites allow everything. Not everyone has the same personal preferences and tolerances. DMCA isn’t the end all be all. Just because you’re allowed to post anything doesn’t mean you want to post anything on your particular site. It all depends on your audience.
[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:14, topic:10325”]
The question is trust in whom or what?
[/quote]For your first point, what I meant was the trust of a transaction for goods/services,for example I am able to trust to a more than reasonable level that mcdonalds will sell me a burger to a level of what you would expect from mcdonalds for their stated price, but before I receive any burger I have to pay for the burger. So I was thinking of a way to guarantee the reputation of a seller (they are telling the whole truth of their product/service) and buyer (they will pay for the product/service) probably reviews and ratings but I am sure there is a bit more that can be done there.
I should of meant AI that would scan the internet to try and guess those values, though you would probably have to have multiple AIs trying to become certain types of people (I expect most people to trust google, but something tells me the types of people here aren’t too trusting of them[quote=“bluebird, post:2, topic:10325”]
A search engine that only shows what Google filters out.
A video site that only shows what Youtube removes.
A shopping/market site that only sells what Amazon or Ebay prohibit.
[/quote])
Also to end it off a question [quote=“Blindsite2k, post:14, topic:10325”]
there are those, myself included who can see a world without such limitations.
[/quote] Could you tell me a practical(to me meaning people would actually do it if allowed to) method of having a transaction (e.g. buying one apple for a pound) without any system of trust(the giver trusting the receiver (banks), the receiver trusting the giver (most restaurants) or some third-party involvement(smart contracts,blockchain)?
And maybe not since the content is public data and many APPs can be built to access that data in their own format.
Of course the data will be public and other sites might use the same source to scrape and build their clone in a few mintues, but the point is that the popularity of being the first one will be in the mouth of everyone as a point of reference to go whenever they want to watch a movie of any type and genre.
There might be infinity of other sites popping up offering the same, but how can you differentiate yourself, what could be your added value when the first one has or can have everything, and the only maximum expectation is to equal them?
In this case I think the first mover’s advantage is the definitive advantage.
Reputation systems, such as that found on Ebay, and on the (defunct) Silk Road, allow an accumulation of trust that works very efficiently in my experience. Those examples tend to be biased somewhat in favor of the buyer (i.e., rating the buyer is absent or weak) but that isn’t necessary and it could be more symmetrical.
Where trust goes bad is, in my view, where the masses trust someone merely for being a state official, or a front-man for a media conglomerate, or a banker, or a professor at a famous university. I.e., If the organization is big and official-looking then it is worthy of trust, which is dead wrong but successive generations of people keep falling for it.
That’s two ways the term is commonly used, with the first compatible with SAFEnet and the second definitely not.
I agree, but I was wondering how @Blindsite2k would go about buying an apple without using system of trust in a
Although I think trust is good,it shouldn’t apply to companies like banks rating and credit agencies. I think they have to be designed to only tell truths and be objective, while their current goal is to make themselves rich, they are only doing what is in their best interest and should be expected to follow them even if that means their actions damage or sometimes kill people (indirectly) and they will continue do so until stopped. I expect the only thing possible to stop something of the scale of the current way banking is done is a total collapse of the worlds economy which unfortunately seems to look more and more likely as time goes by with the exposure of Deutsche bank derivatives and their investment in the Italian banks non preforming loans or sofferenze as well as some hiccups at banco Santander. In any case if the foundation falls down it could be rebuilt with much more stability and “safe” ty as countries try to find something to back a new currency as well as a new global currency that is value backed and easier and cheaper to transfer another option could be electrical energy which wouldn’t be hoarded and has some nice built in features, but I am getting a bit off topic here.
To answer this you observe the behavior of the seller towards other customers. That is you observe their reputation, reviews and whether other customers get their burgers. If it’s a new business perhaps it would be prudent of them to give out free samples of their product or give references to other work they’ve done, either for profit or non profit. But an established business should have an established customer base from which one can garner reputation. If you don’t see happy customers coming and going and the food doesn’t smell good maybe you should eat elsewhere. Also like any investment there’s an element of risk involved.
First off you’re misquoting me. I didn’t say we didn’t need trust. I said we didn’t need trust in government. There’s a difference. Forming trust between individuals is natural. But blindly trusting some authority that you don’t know and have no direct relationship to and that rules by force and violence is not. Although most of the institutions of “civilization” that you cite I think need to be abolished or decentralized anyway. Get rid of the banks. Decentralize health and definitely education. And resturaunts are private businesses. As bluebird said there’s no need for trust when you have a reputation system in place. Why would I trust a resturaunt I’d never heard of without a reputation system? Or any business for that matter? So you’ve got a great idea, that’ll get my attention but you need to put out proof of concept or have a community or customer base to prove you can do what you say. Why would I buy from someone with no reputation?
Well as I said before I don’t believe that there is a need or that it’s possible to eliminate trust. All relatiionships are based on trust. You either trust the reputation system or you trust an individual. What I questioned was trust in an authority or government. So to buy an apple you’d either directly trust the farmer or have a reputation system in place to vet the farmer. And one could have multiple reputation systems for such a vetting process. What I don’t support is when the government is the only valid choice for garnering reputation. I don’t see a reason for government. Reputation systems can be created voluntarily, even multiple reputation systems can be created to work side by side and create additional protection. There is no need for the banking cartel, in fact the banking cartel should be destroyed as it’s perpetuation of debt based currency is one of the most destructive elements to our economy and by extension through human behavior the entire planet. Having a decentralized value based currency like precious metals or cryptocurrency such as safecoin makes much more sense.