Network Abuse Protections


So is censoring is ok if you call it ‘filtering’? Playing Devil’s advocate (having taken all of the comments on board), if app creators can filter things, then isn’t that a dangerous thing for the network? How could you know which apps were truly unfiltered? Open source I guess?


Who is talking about every human on the planet? Only about half of people in the world even have access to the internet. I would say that your comment is untrue though, this project is often referred to as the Internet 2.0, if that’s not hopes for mass adoption by the general populace, I don’t know what is?

That’s ok, it is a free world and you have every right to feel insulted. As to whether the comment was insulting, is another matter. I think you will find that everyone in an echo chamber thinks for themselves.


Pretty sure you have sourced the term ‘echo chamber’ from well an ‘echo chamber’…so well, yeah, no point doing that :wink:


Not at all if it is done in a voluntary manner and with mutual consent. I just don’t want the government or corporations such as Google or Facebook censoring the content that I can access.


What it means is that everyone is free to create whatever kind of app they want.
The SAFE network will do something internet cannot do today: let apps be created and run that have your data owned 100% by you, secure, anonymous etc.
But, app creators of course have the freedom to write other kinds of apps, and wether or not they get users hinges totally upon wether users wants those apps. You see?

And about “filtering” being a dangerous thing for the network:
Imagine a forum app. It lets moderators manage forums. So there can come spammers that would fill topics with ads or pure nonsense. It is not even remotely dangerous that the moderators can filter that out.
The network of course does not care if I create an app where I decide that some stuff can be filtered out.
Doesn’t even need to be spam, can be irrelevant search results, same thing really… And nothing strange at all :slight_smile:


Oh god, nor do I. My reason for suggesting some sort of consensus mechanism to remove certain information is mainly to protect the reputation of the network and those people that use it. But the response to this is seemingly a brick wall saying ‘nope, not possible’. Has every possible concept been exhausted? surely not?


I wouldn’t say that every possible option has been exhausted, but…: just looking at the implications of implementing - at network level - the ability for anyone (wether that be a group or not) to have any influence what so ever, on any one else’s own data… that is profoundly in direct contradiction to the basis of the network: that no one but you owns your data.

So, that is the reason of the so called “brick wall” :slight_smile:
It’s like going to SpaceX and saying “But hey, do the rockets really need to leave the earth surface?” :slight_smile:


I think the reason for the brick wall is that any attempt to create such a system would create a central point of failure and attack vector. We can all just regulate ourselves, that’s much better than people trying to regulate each other generally. If there is any way for people to regulate each other in an involuntary way then SAFE has not done its job. The essence of the network is individual ‘ownership’ and control of data. True ownership gives you censor resistance. Trying to separate one from the other would be as hard as making a blockchain scale. It just defies the fundamentals of the system too radically. I doubt we could solve it even if we had hundreds of millions and years to try :wink:


Apart from everyone who has Put an identical file on the network? :wink:

I wasn’t talking about people’s private data being deleted, more public safesites being flagged. I mean currently anybody can encrypt ‘iffy’ data and store it on a cloud service and there hasn’t been any media outcry from that.


I know it was intended as a patronising smart-alec comment, but that’s a very good point, do we need space rockets to get items to space or do we look at space elevators? This is my point, is there another way?


So what did the dev team do when they came across a troublesome aspect during the network development over the last decade?

“Aw shyte Wee Burney, wi’v found a central point uh failure, lets gae haem and drink som Super T an gie up”.


The only way I could imagine would be some nightmare of ‘democratic’ mobs making the minorities conform to their current social ideals. Perhaps if you had some NAP-type constitution to back up your ‘laws/rules’? This is the kind of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place though imo. Government of any description seems like an offensive idea when you take a microscope to it. That’s just my bias though ofc. If you come up with a way then I’m sure you’d find it popular among more mainstream folks.


They designed it very carefully without central points of failure. As David likes to say, messing with it is like sticking your finger in the ocean.

:laughing: Ok, that was pretty good text accent. :rofl:


And again, this is my point, if you don’t find something to engage the mainstream folk then you end up with another Tor.

So on day 1, they decided that they wouldn’t have any central points of failure and then in the following decade they didn’t find any central points of failure that they overcame?

My mum’s side of the family is from Glasgow (Gorbals). My Granddad and Great Uncle were twins and both had stokes in their 70s so I had to learn a new slurry scottish language. It’s probably my proudest life skill, I can easily understand a completely blootered Glaswegian.


It’s a different thing to work backwards from an ideal “How do we network and secure data ownership?” and find a way to solve that problem, than it is to then come along with an even harder one, “how do we simultaneously allow people to guarantee CONTROL of their data themselves, but at the same time make sure someone else (responsible?) can control it too?” You have not set an additional challenge, you’ve completely changed the premise.

I have my reasons for believing ‘mass adoption’ will occur. I see censor resistance and controversy as the critical drivers, not the stumbling blocks. Each to their own though, bedtime for me :slight_smile:


Well, then they own the data too, and it’s not strictly “your own data”. Additionally, they can’t influence your ability to have access to this data. So point stands.

I think you answered yourself ahead of time on that one!

But no, actually, that’s not how I would respond to it :slight_smile:
Maybe that was a patronising way to put it, but I don’t think it was my intention. I think I just wanted to make a really catchy comparison that would make it more clear in what way the suggestion is a bit absurd :slight_smile: So, no need to feel it as hostility I think, or that’d be your choice then I would think.

You missed my point about space rockets: assuming the goal is to get something off of earth’s surface - wether with a rocket, sling shot, Santa Claus sleigh or space lift: coming to SpaceX and saying does it really have to leave the earth’s surface?
Point stands.


Meeting up with a friend today reminded me of what a lot of people are like nowadays, his Mrs was constantly taking photos (our kids looking slightly friendly with eachother) and uploading them to facebook while we were there. My Mrs’ phone was buzzing with all the notifications tagging us as being there. I know I’m there, because, well I’m there so I why does anyone else need to know that I’m here? it’s mental. Sorry OT but anyway. Goodnight!


You are preaching to the converted there my friend. I’ve not owned a phone for 7 years. I have also never had a facebook account (apart from a work one). I don’t get it either. People walk around like zombies staring at their devices. I’d rather spend my time gardening or cooking or whatever than wasting it on social media.

I do seem to spend a lot of time here though, so I guess I’m not as different as I like to think :wink:


I was just going to say :slight_smile: that’s increasingly a fitting description of me with regards to safe forum :smile:
But really, if we’re gonna get really deep, yes spending time in nature and with people etc. is what we’re biologically adapted to, so that will be quite healthy way to spend time.

But as with everything we can get really fascinated by stuff, and then we become a bit extreme, like spending too much time reading about safenet on our phones, or being stuck on Facebook.
However, there’s a huge difference there between those you probably imagine (peer confirmation addicts on Facebook) and people with a fascination for some really advanced and sophisticated network. Regardless, I do know nerds on Facebook who use it only to share information about birds they’ve spotted or mushrooms they’ve picked. Not all that use it are the way (I think) you imagine them :slight_smile:


Say whaaaaat… no phone for 7 years? how have family and friends reacted to that? I love not having facebook, when I meet up with friends, conversation Is so easy because you’ve actually got things to talk about.

One assumes you must have a Faraday cage at home? I’m going to be so disapointed if you haven’t, so please lie… :wink:


Your concerns remind me of my own concers, which I addressed shortly after joining the forum. Maybe this is an interesting read for you: Unethical uses of the network and "safe police"