In my opinion, to be SAFE is more than just anonymity. We all should be SAFE from fraud, hatred and abuse. The community has to protect children, freedom of speech and diversity at the same time. And I am sure thats possible. Hope to inspire the developers…
As for the proposal, I personally think its brilliant!
To get at the wider societal issue we need the right to be idle. That has to be the core principle of a society and the society must be structured in every way to support it. In essence its the right to say no. And saying no is core to what is being said above. Its really an opt in principle.
Very interesting idea, except that the integrity of the SAFE architecture will not allow to differentiate chunks like that, I don’t think. It would defeat the security of the medium.
But there is no reason that meta tags for public data couldn’t be used, as far as I can see. Probably even rating and additional tagging could work, too. Those would be useful. Those questions are over my head technically, but I think it could be done without violating anything at a system level.
I think of Stumbleupon as a partial model for this.
The subject is a good one. In the next day or so I’ll be releasing an article on SAFEcrossroads.net which I wrote a few days ago (as soon as I get a response on a request for editing). It deals with the at least part of the underlying issue.
only the content you like can be hosted publicly, on the disk space you provide to the community
Nobody knows the actual content of the chunks they host, publicly or privately…and that’s a design feature.
I dont see the problem you are wanting to solve…
If I am not mistaken SAFE may already do this at least assuming a good open source unsponsored end user factor tree search system enters the equation. Which such a search system operating stuff that gets down voted won’t get accessed much and will enter cold storage compression.
@chrisfostertv this is something that could possibly be done at the search level. But intuitively its an attempt to limit the spam to preserve the integrity of the network’s content. Its a filter. But @Privatpirat seems to be suggesting that people even have some control over how their resource contribution will be used. Would seem to have a chicken and egg problem where a user generated tag base would have to be up and running first. But here at least it would be end users exercising control over their attention and resource contribution and it seems to have a bit of the up voted factor tree built in. Once the network was up and running maybe this kind of stuff could be layered in. Maybe it wouldn’t be etched in stone but could help make decisions about resource apportionment?
If I own a house in real live, I would never let it to a group of racists, because I would support hatred. I neither would let it to a company wich exploits humans or to anybody who wants produce child pornography there. And I don’t need to. Because I have, as @Warren said, the freedom to say NO.
So the first problem I would like to solve is: Farmers have to support content wich is against their ethical values or even against human rights.
But my idea is not just about solving problems. I see a big chance to create a better, SAFER web without prescribed authorities.
I think it could be done without affecting the anonymity or security of the content. It is just about the public content, wich can be seen by any user. This content has to be related to a domain/id to be accessible by users. The domain/id would be tagged and filtered. So you would only block content, wich is related to a certain domain/ip, to be stored on your disc space and shown in your search.
It’s an interesting idea but tricky in practice because it would interfere with your vault’s ranking if you refused to host certain content.
I don’t see how that could be avoided even if it could be implemented - which I’m also unsure of (the fact that the content is public doesn’t necessarily mean it’s feasible for you to know whether a block put in your vault has been tagged in a way that you approve/disapprove).
The problem is that is such à possibily exists at all, it will necessarily be used to restrain freedom of speech.
OP is confused and adopting what is a common fallacy and a confusion that plagues much of policing and security.
Communication is inherently Good. Similarly Tor is a method of communicating… there’s nothing illegal about it.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
So, that Tor; SAFE; and other tools like encryption make interference harder, is irrelevant to their being legal.
There is a difference between what makes progress and what perpetuates problems. That difference is one point the OP is not understanding and refects the same stupidity that comes from politics and security services.
If some users want to establish a tagging system, then they can have that as an optional extension in their browsers. It is wrong to expect that to be part of the platform… that’s the kind of stupidity that sees ‘intelligence’ services forcing backdoors - the result is a corruption of the intent.
If you want such issues as racism to be done away with, then you need to push for education not censorship. Communicating the difference and debating that, helps resolve problems; not communicating and ‘knowing’ what is better. Enforcing what is better for others, is the arrogance that leads to existential crisis, the like that the security services are facing now. These ideas are basic philosophy and at the route of good democracy.
There are good reasons to worry about organised crime and nation state actors but personal freedom necessarily comes above all other issues.
SAFE us from people with good intentions!!
totally agree, thought the video was good though, well presented and put together.
There is a big difference between censorship (from security services, politics, industry…) and self chosen tags and filters. Any kind of tagging is necessary anyway to make the content finable. And if I define a filter it isn’t effecting you at all. Filters would’t be even public unless you share them. Theres no intention to enforce what is better for others. It’s just about the option for every individual to support content or not.
Sure, if 99% of the users decide to not host blue elephants the system is less attractive for those who want to publish a blue elephant page. But that’s the basic idea of democracy.
To make this function part of the system is the only way to avoid corruption. It makes sure that it’s open source and provides equality of opportunity. In the moment you give it into the hands of the industry, the abuse will already start. Maybe you have heard of a company called google.
A Good communication platform, not corrupted, cannot be partial. A Good and uncorrupted platform, necessarily must be neutral to the content.
That is censorship.
Sheilding us from such nonsense as you are suggesting, is exactly why SAFE is important.
Saying shit doesn’t make it true.
Again, if people want tagging, they can have that but that should be a choice and not imposed… otherwise that does become corrupt and does stifle communication.
If there was not a problem, SAFE and others would not be trying to solve it. You seem not to understand that there is a problem.
If this exists, there will be pressures on users to refuse certain contents, possibly goverment pressures. And of course a slow and inexorable extension of the definition of “bad content”.
I think that freedom of speech very much works binarily. Either it is there, or it is not. Being “for the freedom of speech with some exception” is just like being against the death penalty with certain exceptions for particularily horrible crimes : it means being in favor of the death penalty ans against freedom of speech.
This is honorable but how can SAFE define racism, hatred, abuse, etc? That is impossible.
If you define spam rules in your email client, it is not censorship - it is personal filtering and your own choice. If you do not share a post on your blog, you do not censor it. You just don’t support it.
If you have to support content or meanings against your will, your freedom of speach is restrained.
I respect your point of view, but I am afraid the world is not that simple. You have to consider more facts to create freedom.
If you define tagging or rules in your browser, it is not censorship.
Imposing such rules as you see fit, is censorship.
Again saying shit doesn’t make it true. You do not understand my point of view or you would not hold yours.
You do not create freedom. You protect it!
Also, freedom for whom?.. The parental Government that keeps us safe and simple?.. A government that defends us at the expense of freedom, is seen to be protecting the existing power and wealth at the expense of progress.
Let people have their freedom to communicate. Either you believe in society and the potential of people widely to maintain their interests or you do not. If you are so pessimistic about reality, go an hide under a rock but don’t inflict your opinion on others.
Again, if people choose some limit, then one option is that they can tag content along with others and avoid that stress. Where that boundary lies is different for different people and different contexts. Imposing what is right and proper; providing parental Government, corrupts people’s understanding of what is important and makes us dependant on that nonsense to maintain it… it’s a slippery slope and there is no end to the call from the lowest denominator wanting more limits and noting that we are not pure enough to satisfy them.
The whole point is that making chunks of information identifiable complitely defeats the purpose of the SAFE Network and paves the way to censorship.
The video won’t play for me.
Also the moment you started talking about being “safe from” something my little statist warning lights and alarm klaxons went off. The moment you start imposing a value system of any kind whatsoever then we start having problems because having a value system requires compromising privacy and freedom.
As I understood, nobody can figure out wich account is yours. And nobody can access it, unless you give away your password. Of cause a government can make a law wich says you have to use a certain filter. But they could never proof if you do so. They could make a law wich says whole SAFE is illegal, wich was even worser.
So let governments, religions and sportclubs provide their filters to the community. Its fine. Cause its always your decision if you use them or not.
Everybody has another idea of good or bad content. A gay porn actor from the Netherlands who likes weed and caricature has probably another ideas of (il)legal content than a muslim from Malaysia or a housewife from Texas. The idea is to protect diversity as part of human freedom.