As I told, democracy cannot be build on top. It has to be the base. -If you wanna have it the democratic way.
You can also run away from goverments and be ruled by the industry like we allready have it. But it won’t change anything and the project will fail.
You keep forgetting that saying shit doesn’t make it true.
Small evils for the greater good, is a fallacy.
Breaking the system in the way you’re suggesting is short-sighted.
2 Likes
I don’t. SAFE is a decentralized autonomous organization and is in a way a business. It offers services, jobs, and sorta shares. People are free to reject them all if they don’t like the conditions.
Repeating it doesn’t make it true…
@Privatpirat Why don’t you just fork the network if you believe so strongly that people should know what data they’re hosting? You do it your way and we’ll do it our way and see who comes out on top. It doesn’t have to be either or the code is open after all. Just code your own version.
6 Likes
SAFE isn’t a democracy. It is a Decentralized automous organization.
In other words it works how it’s code works and doesn’t give a rip what anybody thinks…
Ask the bitcoin blockchain for a refund for example - it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong – It aint gunna happen because there isn’t a lever to pull to make it do that.
These things don’t generally “fail” Because their sole intention is to execute code…
Politics suck. Projects like these are generally crytpo-anarchist in philosophy, and they are highly unlikely to let politics back in, as that is the very monster they are intending to kill.
1 Like
We all will see than anyway if and wich a project comes on top. Indipendent from what I do.
Is it
or
?
If it is a
it needs an makeover as giving more rights to the average user or will end up like the other darknets. If you decentralize the datas, you have to decentralize the decision as well.
If it is
it will have the same legal problems like the projects of Kim Dotcom or SAFE has to give the decision to the users to avoid that.
Kim Dotcom is a man with a business that can be raided, shut down, equipment confiscated etc etc.
SAFE is software distributed all around the world run by nobody… Like Bitcoin or Bitorrent. Nobody will have control over what it does or doesn’t do – It will do what it is programmed to do, but there will be no central place to raid, no servers to confiscate, no authority to corrupt into making it discriminate or censor etc.
Big difference. You don’t have to like it. Just ignore it if you don’t think it is a fit for your needs…It will go about it’s business either way.
1 Like
It’s all open source, that is decentralizing decisions.
1 Like
Again, repeating something doesn’t make it true.
Your proposal would do exactly the opposite. If people know what they host it is a matter of time until government harassment begins against farmers who host things the government considers illegal. Giving farmers this ability doesn’t give them rights, it paints a giant target on their backs. If it can’t be reasonably expected that farmers are aware of the content of the data they host, they have plausible deniability and at least in most Western democracies won’t be convicted.
So your proposal makes government censorship and farmer harassment possible, that’s the opposite of giving people more rights.
6 Likes
Exactly. To protect the data, one has to protect the users from the knowledge of the data. It can’t work otherwise, as it would allow pressure and prosecutions. Privatpirat, your proposal defeats the whole purpose of the SAFE network as it compromises the security of both the users and the data.
7 Likes
when encrypted it really isn’t content; yes when decrypted at a higher level there is meaning to the statement that you should have the freedom to support or not support content. But as encrypted bytes, ‘content’ has lost its meaning, so the question is null. There is just the freedom to support the network as a whole or not.
9 Likes