This has nothing to do with being able to censor or not. This point is simply will we have sites that the general public will want to visit. Just like the internet there could also be other sites they don’t want to visit. No one will force them to visit the ones they don’t want to. SAFE is not a “PUSH” service, but like the current internet people visit sites they want to. So this point has nothing to do with censorship.
Your whole point in the opening post was to allow the ability to censor the content stored on SAFE (public you say) itself. And not for APPs to be able to weed out the content you don’t want to see.
As soon as you allow a group of people (random or not) to remove content from SAFE then it becomes open slather for any government in the world to censor (remove) any public content. The reason so much stuff on the current web pages is not removed is because the server resides in a country that allows that particular content. Now SAFE does not have a country governing it. It is world wide and your censoring group is not limited to a server, but the whole of SAFE’s public content.
Now the reason SAFE is not able to be censored is that the following would happen, not maybe, but absolutely would happen if you allow groups to remove content.
- The UAE would remove content that is offensive to them.
- ISIS would remove content that is negative to them
- USA would remove content that embarrasses the government
- China would remove references to their human rights violations and so much more
- Australia would take a scatter gun approach to what to remove
- And so on
The reason they could is that even randomly selected people will have a majority who like or dislike something. So eventually nigh on all the content on SAFE would be removed by some random group. The only stuff left would be some basic educational material and the weather. The higher educational stuff would be removed by a random group that cannot stand the sight of it since they have no understanding of it or it offends their beliefs in some way.
Now if its just new material then we would have a scatter gun style of removal. When a random group majority is offended by some religious/news items/sexual education/whatever given to them to review then that is gone. But people in the majority want it. Or some really offensive terrorist material is reviewed by a random group whose majority see it as freedom fighters and allow it.
The point is that random people reviewing random new material will also see quite a significant portion of the new material removed, yet 90% of the world would want it to be on SAFE. Probability and statistics state this will happen with a certainty for some material.
The point of no censorship is not to allow the 0-1% of vile material to remain but to allow the 99+% of the material to remain. Australia has seen our equivalent of the SEC block 225,000 websites in one blocking order to the ISPs. All but one of those sites were good sites. We’ve seen the government take down material which in fact was in the public interest simply because the material was on a server in Australia and exposed the government’s corruption or contraindicated the government’s view.
Censorship knows no boundaries on SAFE. To allow one site/file to be censored is to allow all public files to be potentially censored. Remember censorship on the current internet is limited by the country the server is in, but for SAFE the “server” is world wide and all countries, religions, self interested groups, whatever.
The reason for wanting no censorship is not