Moral issues as regards PtP and PtD

Features
141

Now that I have cleared my mind and filled my belly, here’s my line of reasoning on PtP and morals/values/ethics/gut feeling, etc. I’m not addressing this to anyone in particular just at the individual that you are, you who are reading this. Please tell me where I go off track in my line of thought.

Would you, on your own free will, participate in an activity that completely goes against your own set of personal values? You would not, you don’t want your action, your work, your energy to be spent on things you disagree with. You would say things like: “I don’t want to be part of this”, “I’m not going to be held responsible for that”, “That has nothing to do with me”, “This is not my business”, “there’s no way I’ll help you with that”, etc.

You might even try to fight against it if it really goes against what you believe in. Or you might just ignore it and go on your way. Whatever you do, it’s your choice and this decision belongs to you.

Now, would you participate in an activity that partly goes against your values but also partly aligns with them? This is not an easy decision, you would compare the pros and cons and if the pros are more important then the cons then you would. If not you would not. Again you make your choice based on your own set of believes and morals.

Now about Safe and PtP.

Would you want to participate in the Safe network knowing that it will be used in part for activities that goes contrary to your set of values, whichever they are? Since you are on this forum, you probably would. You reason that the benefits of having a network like Safe are more important to you then the drawbacks of having a network like Safe. Again, it’s a personal choice.

It’s the same thing for PtP. Do you want to participate in PtP knowing that it will be used for activities that goes against your values? If you think the benefits trumps the drawbacks, you would.

Now the question is: by being a participant in making PtP work, are you in part responsible for its benefits and its drawbacks? Yes you are, you are a cog in the machine, a small cog but one nonetheless. And that is totally fine, the world is not perfect and this is the kind of tough decision you have to make, that is what leaders do, or adults even. Are you in part responsible for the act itself? No you are not. But you are most definitely in part responsible for the benefits they will get from it. Again, this is fine, we make these choices everyday.

In my case, I don’t think PtP will profit to the kind of content that I care about, and on the contrary, I think PtP will profit more to content that either I don’t care about or that I am strongly against. I also think its other potential drawbacks could have insidious effect on the network. So if I could opt-out of PtP I would, because I don’t want to participate in it and be a part of if. And this is a very personal opinion based on my own set of beliefs and values. Everyone of you is making the same decision for yourselves and it’s totally normal that you end up at a different conclusion.

Would I still support Safe if PtP is implemented? I most likely would. Would others do the same? Well that is up to them. But it is a question of morals and values.

So all this is not fear, uncertainty and doubt. This is a peer-to-peer network, and with no peers there is no network. So if you are a peer you share the responsibility of the effect of the network with all other peers, I can’t see how it could be any other way and honestly, I wouldn’t want it any other way because it is what makes this whole project so interesting.

So anyway, that took me forever to write, I don’t know how some of you can post an essay every 10 minutes. So yeah, thanks for reading and I welcome any critics of my reasoning, time for bed now, cheers!

1 Like
142

You said this in relation to peeing

So you you did claim peeing is a moral decision[quote=“TylerAbeoJordan, post:126, topic:7791”]
If that doesn’t win me the argument here, then I think you are being evasive
[/quote]

And you claimed victory

Who in right mind does not think that is claiming victory.

AND this is why this is the last. If you want to use subjective morals then one can do as you did and claim white is black which really is an orange.

On that note, it is a pretty useless discussion, and shows common sense has left the room once morals becomes the decisions.

143

Give me a break. You know very well I’m not talking about anyone else’s money but my own. And it’s laughable that you are trying to turn this around – it is you who are supporting PtP and hence attempting to control everyone’s money … see my next point.

The network doesn’t own any money – only people own value - only people can ‘own’ things. The network is only holding currency in support of the network – currency that belongs to all of us collectively – the question is how best to support the network with our collectively held funds in a manner that we can morally agree upon.

The total sum of money floating in the economy has an impact on the value we each hold in our wallets. I don’t believe you are so ignorant about economics given our previous discussions.

Do you intend to profit as a producer from PtP? I want to know (and I want others to know) if you have a profit bias here in this discussion.

You don’t know the outcome of PtP and PtD… I’ve made solid arguments in another topic indicating that it’s quite conceivable that big business (those with large piles of capital) will be the real winners with PtP as they can leverage more advertising and use PtP as a subsidy, while the little guy will end up relatively gagged. So, to my mind you are the one compromising the network with your support of PtP.

Unless we run two networks with and without PtP side by side for several years nobody can make any real hard estimations about the effects of PtP, good or bad. Thus making your argument in favor of PtP is pure sophistry.

If we can’t know the outcome, we can at least understand the principle (EDIT: and by principle I mean moral principle) … or at least I can. The network is holding our money collectively for the benefit of the network to exist (so paying farmers is a no-brainer) but I do not believe that those funds should be used for the benefit of those who are ‘popular’ or those who produce things that I find morally wrong.

It is public money not your money - if you want to support something, then pay for it out of your wallet.

1 Like
144

well you can believe that up is down and war is peace too. I guess it’s easier though to twist simpler phrases like mine.

Anyone who thinks rationally and takes words at face value instead of assuming they mean more than face value.

Again, there is no ‘common sense’ if it did ever exist, please give an example.

145

If PtP is implemented I may use it SAFEnet temporarily, but I would aim to support any effort to fork the network without PtP – and that includes throwing cash at another team to do it.

146

Basically If people want PtP and PtD, The only fair solution is to give people a function to “reject the producer or content”.
I want to be able to punish the producer by rejecting the content to be stored onto my hard-drive from a site or a file I know that is bad content.

It always just two choices be on the safe network and accept the bad content will have an income or do not be on the safe network where is the middle ground?

147

That doesn’t speak very highly of your view of DAOs or DAPPs. But be that as it may let’s run with it. Okay the “network” is our collective funds. Again we’re back to the orignal issue. Security, Access, Freedom for Everyone. SAFE’s fundamental principles of security, privacy and freedom haven’t changed. Nor has changed the fact it must remain non partisan. Nor has changed the fact it must not know the content of any of the data fed it. SAFE must not be able to monitor user data because that would be a security breach. So even if we did view SAFE as a collective pool of funds we COULDN’T go making “decisions about what’s best to do with our money” because that would breach the non partisan and net neutrality of SAFE. SAFE is NOT A GOVERNMENT! SAFE is the internet 2.0! If you want government look up the bitlaw app that’s being developed.

I actually proposed this very arguement on the PtP implimentation thread just the other day and was defeated. @neo can tell you about it as he’s the one that I was debating with. Long story short if you’re referring to devaluation of currency due to the release of, in this case, PtP funds into the system, its no good. Look what would happen if a billionaire came a long and bought a whack of safecoins? Safecoins would be worth a lot more in fiat. People could buy more with them. Farmers could buy more hard drives, people in general could buy more food, stuff, whatever. Value would go up. This might inspire people to sell their safecoin to buy fiat. It might inspire a rash of farmers to buy a bunch of new hardware for new farming rigs. It might even mean we have a rash of people taking up farming in order to earn safecoin. But whatever happens the results are the same. Lots of farmers means the network gets more computer resources and it makes safecoin cheaper to spend and harder to earn from farming. Less farmers means lower computer resources and safecoin because easier to farm and harder to spend on uploads. So ultimately no matter the value of safecoin be it measured in resources or fiat it would even out. If a billionaire buys a bunch of safecoin and sits on it it doesn’t matter because the network takes the number of safecoins issued into consideration when calculating it’s values. Hoarding safecoin won’t work like hoarding fiat will. Same for devaluing safecoin. More safecoin and only a few computer resources? Time to cut down on safecoin issuing to farmers a bit and make uploads cheaper. Less safecoin issued and not to many computer resources? Time to send out those safecoins and get those farmers interested! And since PtP is based on farming rates it’s the same deal except its rate/10.

I’m a content producer yes; I could profit either way. And PtP will benefit everyone as anyone using safe will be uploading content to some degree. If you recall I also opposed PtP quite vehemently. But it’s proven not to be a tax as money isn’t taken from one’s wallet and it’s proven not to devalue the currency as the maths can prove. I actually did run the numbers on this which is ultimately what changed my mind on this. I couldn’t mathamatically prove that PtP would devalue the currency. If you can please share your equations.

Link please?

Why? Content that is popular promotes the adoption of the network. More popular content = more network adoption and more GETs for farmers. And why should what you or I find morally right or wrong be any concern to the network?

1 Like
148

Ok, I admit it, I do not like it and I do want it to go away but at the same time I welcome it and I do not ignore it for the following reasons:

  1. It challenges my own thinking which I am always striving to improve.
  2. As @neo pointed out, FUD brings faster mass adoption. Note: I am not accusing you of FUD here and I think your intentions are good. But I do think that FUD will come from the angle that Maidsafe is immoral. Even if PtP is not implemented, that does not stop an App developer from building an app specifically catered to child pornographers.

As I said before, in a perfect world, all contributions to the network would be voluntary.

I never indicated otherwise. I’ve agreed from the beginning that this is a moral issue and that I’ve concluded that PtF, PtP and PtD are moral features based on my definition. So please show me where I have contradicted myself.

I’ve also indicated that the people behind Maidsafe exhibits the highest morals IMO because they have build a system that is not based on subjective morals which is relative and ever changing but on objective facts. They have build a system that mimics unbiased amoral elements we find in nature such as the sun and rain which we all enjoy irregardless of our moral standings.

I also fully agree with others who have so eloquently argued that the network is based on a mathematical algorithm which is a universal language based on objective facts.

@DavidMtl, you ask to share where I disagree and here it is:

I reject any notion that I am somehow responsible for those who choose to use the benefits (afforded to all of us by the network) to do horrible things. To me that is like saying that because I make part of the human rice, I am somehow responsible for every evil human act.

3 Likes
149

I’m not arguing about right or wrong. I’m saying that legal definitions change by jurisdiction. Age of consent is 13 years in Japan. Do I agree with that? Not really. But a 13yo in Japan is free to do stuff that would be totally illegal in much of the West. On the other hand, picturing certain things in Japan is totally illegal (regardless of age or if it’s “sexual”), while it’s legal at other places, provided the age is above a limit, which is much higher than the age of consent in Japan, incidentally. In other words, you can easily find things that are mutually illegal in, for example, the United States and Japan.

EDIT: Yea, but there’s no “generally speaking” … your general is someone else’s extreme. What’s “sexual”? Let’s play the Saudi Arabia v.s. the Netherlands match and see who wins…

Yes, there are a very few cultural absolutes (murder, torture, etc) that are undisputable. They are fewer than most would think. Who’s rules should then be forced upon all the others?

4 Likes
150

Lot has been said since your response, but let me quickly respond to it, even if this late.

This isn’t about if morality is important or if it isn’t. It is simply about that if something is implemented, then it will disregard morality, because computers can’t decide based on that.

So, we’re left with two options:

  • We will have some sort of a payment system, that some will use for bad. (It’s very much like the banks and the manufacturing industry and all other things in the “real world”, so chances are you’re already compromising on your values. Granted, I would love to participate in a system without that kind of compromise.)
  • We will not have a payment system. Once something is shared, it’s free forever. Tips can be encouraged, but that’s where it stops.

You say that you don’t want to participate in a network where there’s a chance that your actions will result in somebody’s getting paid for evil, even if that’s without your knowledge. I respect that, and I’m halfway towards your side on that, to be honest. I’m not exactly sure how this is different from farming rewards though. Btw, no PtP means no payment for digital goods, forever, but I can live with that.

2 Likes
151

For the 3rd time (if not 4th) on this site:

  • A 17 year old uploads photos of himself/herself masturbating to the Internet
  • Someone reposts the photo to SAFE

No data theft, no privacy, no doxing, no injured party.

Expert TAJ: look, SAFE contains immoral kiddie pr0n, and because PtP let’s all boycott SAFE!

(In reality, he can’t even tell whether the SAFE “producer” is the teen himself!)

1 Like
152

In reality though you can even find kiddie pr0n on the clear net. It’s dangerous to access because you can be tracked but it’s THERE. Moreover some jurisdictions like say Australia consider it illegal to even view lolicon, which is just art. But that’s just fine in say the U.S. or Canada or any number of other places around the world and again is available on the clearnet. My point is do we “Boycott the internet!!!” because we find some objectionable material on it? No. We don’t even boycott facebook or twitter for crying out loud.

153

While I do find it absurd to boycott a system because some can or do use it for stuff I abhor, I would also like to point out that the decision of a majority is not a moral argument.

1 Like
154

I think the argument is that is it also absurd to boycott as system that pays / thus incentivizes those who can and do do stuff we abhor.

You’ll know my answer to that question…but just in case… yes it is absurd if all virtuous and abhorrent behaviors are paid by this system the same, blindly and indiscriminately.

"These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ Matthew 20:12-15

Doesn’t Maidsafe have the right to do what they want with the safecoins they issue? Take your farming reward and go.

1 Like
155

I’m bored so I’ll jump in. I might regret this though. :confounded:

So wait I’m confused. :open_mouth: Is objectivity not possible? Is it not true that everyone has different morals? Are we as humans not capable of putting our emotions and personal beliefs aside to create a neutral platform?

The argument being that the same issue of morality could be said of any tool. All who posses the Item do not explicitly assume moral responsibility of those that choose to misuse it. The tool can be leveraged by the user for any purpose. Are these creators not afforded the same immunity of those that came before?

Almost anything can be used for local immorality. Are we to design a system that prevents all immorality or just some? The system has to be neutral or it fails. One point of access/system control just lands us here again. Moral forks inherently have this weakness.

Majority reached avoidance quorums reduces future diversity. If we walk this path, we block the chance of learning from unusual and unorthodox ideas. Every data point enhances our understanding.

If this PtP/PtD idea is implemented, have you not made an immoral decision for the short period of use based on your logic? Is immorality acceptable only for brief periods?

I have two very strong beliefs, and that is to do no physical harm to macro organisms unless critical for survival and respect free will. Small pests are caught and released. This ensures survival and continued advancement of the plethora of species. I’d build up rather than wide if I can help it. It’s not perfect, but it’s clear and simple IMO. I’m always in pursuit of even greater simplicity.

Psychological harm is a product of pre programming and therefore not my concern for this warped generation. Free minds need to be generated and exalted. I don’t wish to tip toe around anothers psychological construct or control them. Alas compromises are initially necessary to avoid stagnation and chaos. :weary: Superimposition of ones beliefs onto the world will no doubt result in disappointment and in many cases war/separatism.

Sex is a physical act with stimulating properties. Sexual dogmatism drives the rejection of the act and associates negative emotions which permeates society. Social conformity resultant of emotional invocation almost guarantees taboos are established. The word sex invokes a sense of perversion that has been given to us by the social atmosphere. Couple this the word kid or child and the notion of protection creates dissonance that ignores the painlessness of a gesture or act.

This might seem cold, but pure logic is needed to resolve most of the worlds issues
IMO. Saturating everything in socially derived belief and emotion is blinding. This doesn’t mean that emotion shouldn’t be taken into account, but rather that we should find the contextual source of these emotions and their implications. Then the simplicity of IO events becomes fundamental. :innocent:

1 Like
156

Yes but what we the users may or may not subjectively find virtuous or abhorrent is not necessarily of concern to the network which is what I think is so confusing for people. User express their taste or distaste for content by downloading and/or accessing it. But all the network is concerned with is network health, that is the production of content, rate of downloads, the number of safecoins issued and in existence, and the resources available on the network. That’s it. Whether users find one type of content over another type of content is no concern to the network beyond whether one file gets more GET requests opposed to another file.

The maidsafe network is not like a tribe or like government. It is like fire or air, it is the internet, it’s like a gun or a hammer or a sword or a car. It has no moral value in and of itself. The SAFE network does not CHOOSE in and of itself. It offers everyone the same deal, the same oppurtunities, the same security, privacy, freedom and access. Like @Safety1st said and the parable he cited illistrates people tend to get rather upset with the notion of true equality and freedom because much of their identity is tied up in tribalism and making alliances of one tribe against another. When something is truly neutral it’s outside that paradigm of tribalism. Can you make an alliance with the wind? Can the mountain join your tribe? Can you own the element of fire? Can you marry water? So too with the internet. It doesn’t belong to one of us or some of us but all of us. And that can be a frightening concept for some because they don’t like the idea of someone they don’t like having access to power they themselves have access to. They don’t like the idea of being on equal footing with someone they abhor or even empathizing with someone they abhor. God forbid they might actually get to know the person.

4 Likes
157

Beautiful comparison. The one difference is that, unlike in the real world, we can argue about how to do the physics of the network, because we (the community) have control over how it should work (at least within the boundaries of what logic itself allows.)

@TylerAbeoJordan wants this physics to not contain PtP, because it can be misused for evil. In fact, we can say it with certainty that if it’s going to be part of the network, it will be misused for evil. Should we, the “gods” of this universe, feel responsible for that evil, as the ones who set the rules of this universe? This is a completely legitimate question, though I believe the answer is “no.”

I’m not 100% at peace with this, because I do hate the idea to unwittingly contribute to someone else’s crap. But I do realize that if I buy a shirt made in Bangladesh, there is a non-zero chance it was made by slave labor. Or if I buy a phone, parts of it, or the minerals that it contains, are from slave labor. Or my coffee. And so on. It’s terrible, and I hate it.

Anyway. I believe people have free will, and as such, they are fully responsible for their actions. People have free access to knives, and some of them use it for evil. What does it say about the knife? Or about the maker of the knife? Or about the person who decided knives should be sharp?

However, I do find it counter intuitive that we want to pay producers on a system that is designed in a way that makes it impossible to prove or disprove claims of legal ownership. “It’s mine, I made it!” – and the network says, “SURE THING! HERE, MONEYZ” :pouting_cat:

4 Likes
158

The network isn’t concerned with whether you made it. The network is only concerned with whether you uploaded it and if people download that particular file. A pirate that uploads an obscure file that becomes popular is just as valuable to the network as an awesome artist creating amazing works. Ownership is a human concept and something users can fight over. It’s irrelivent to the network. Does the fire care who owns the wood so long as wood is loaded into the fireplace to build up the fire?

1 Like
159

Futurma did an episode where “Bender” the robot became “god” of his little universe with little people blah blah, and no matter how good/bad he was, no matter how much he tried to do right, it caused one problem or the next. Just look at those who try to be perfect in the world. None of them can agree, but you have to wonder if they are trying to achieve that perfect existance would it not be consistent.

In any case the point is that to try and make a system “perfect” in a “moral” framework will spell its demise.

Exactly, if we wish to even partly partake of the “modern” lifestyle, ie buy things, then unfortunately somewhere some/much of it has these negatives that we want eliminated, but so far throughout history we have not been able to do it (yet).

So the devs have written SAFE to be ignorant of intent, have no bias in who uses SAFE, which in the long run protects the innocent. And the crims will be watching their backs because they still interface with the real world and thus available for discovery. You want to deal in drugs then you interface with the real world.

If implemented the system is designed to attract content that others want, without regard to any petty squabbles. Again it would be applied without bias.

But in the real world people will be ones choosing the content to download. Hopefully after people realise they can get original content for the same price/effort as copies then they will prefer the original. If the content is criminal then few will access it and that content may never accumulate enough gets to ever be issued one coin.

So the network is unbiased, applies no moral standard, but the users are free to do so. If users choose copied content over original then that is market (or ignorance) forces at work.

Of course no matter who uses SAFE they are responsible for their actions and to try and claim that other people are responsible is not valid.

2 Likes
160

Well, yes, in my hypothetical scenario that’s exactly where the SAFE photo/video came from.

Correct. Which is why I’ve been asking TAJ to first explain why is the posting itself is immoral. He hasn’t even tried. 160 comments into this circlexxxx topic…

2 Likes