New techcrunch article ignoring Safe network

I am always amazed how people can write articles about a decentralized internet and not mentioning the slightest bit about Safe Network:


Let’s do it ourselves, I just posted there :slight_smile:


I wouldve commented aswell, but they need facebook for their comments. How weird :laughing:


Once SAFE launches and gains some momentum it will be harder for the media to ignore stuff that matters including its own sponsored shill nature where it is paid to censor, drown out and spin. SAFE should make it easier for people to get info directly and even bring about honest search.


Lets hope it will be in-time cause the pressure of many decentralised web is building


From the discussion of this article at hacker news, this point about how ‘normal’ users may choose to migrate to decentralized systems is spot on (emphasis mine):

To most people (99% ?) Facebook, Instagram, Google etc offer everything they want. So they do not feel a need for getting the ‘power back’.

It all comes down to perceived (!) value. Once people use one thing, they will only switch if something else offers a clear higher value. At that point offering the same value is not enough anymore. This higher value has to be something that makes every day life in a very obvious way a little better. I am afraid something abstract like ‘more power’ will not do the trick.


Being able to transact securely and privately with the black market will be one of the biggest draws and will likely be the crow bar that forces this door open… from pirated copies of the latest disney films to party drugs and all kinds of contraband. Average users will all see a very obvious reason to start using a decentralised, secure, private network imo. Almost everyone breaks the law in some way at some point for whatever reason (I’ve never had much respect for the idea of laws and have no problem with that). We exist in the digital universe more and more. If and when you want to download that software for free or read that scientific article without paying and subscribing on legacynet, or get some weed delivered to your house, then chances are you will choose the simplest, most effective, safest and most secure option available to you.

It might not be SAFE, but if anyone manages to accomplish privacy, security and freedom then I have little doubt that it will explode. People do choose the round wheel, they only have to know about it be accessible to them. Freedom is a very powerful thing, and it has a potent draw to it.

One thing you can be sure of, anything that accomplishes those goals and can’t be turned off will get a lot of press coverage. People will not even believe it can’t be turned off at first. That disbelief will fuel fascination and then the seven stages of grief will follow as people and the powers that be realise they have no choice but to adapt to a new paradigm.

I’ve been pondering how this will play out for a year now. Maybe my bias has completely clouded my judgement, but I can’t see any way in which the formula offered by SAFE (or any other project that accomplished the same goals) could fail. If it succeeds technologically, then it succeeds socially/practically… imho :wink:


Nah, Jabba, privacy, security and freedom PER SE aren’t attractive as they are abstract concepts.
It is valuable for us because we understand its meaning, and its consequences. But unfortunately, average people don’t, in fact, they are willingly -and happily- giving up they freedom in exchange for convenience.

I am always talking about the average and the masses, of course; I am not talking about the rational techies, nerds, power users, technophiles, anarchists and libertarians would “get it” immediately once they hear about this project, and to that demographic of course you should market how the network is secure, distributed, anonymous, self-encrypting, self-healing and all that, and they will probably become the first evangelists of the network.

But in more general aspects, the people don’t even buy because it is useful, but because it is what they desire.
If average people were making rational choices, luxury items wouldn’t exist, obesity wouldn’t be a thing, casinos would be out of business and crappy fast foods restaurants would bankrupt.
But all this shit exists because people crave it anyways, even if it is destructive or unhealthy for themselves.
Even if people NEED to stay healthy, they still WANT a cheese burger. Why does that happen?
It could be ignorance, they aren’t even aware of what they need, therefore doesn’t want it.
Or could be dissonance, they KNOW they need something, and yet they WANT the opposite.
Or it could be instant gratification: the need is boring, and what they WANT is FUN/TASTY,

But in all cases it is the WANT that wins.
In our case it is not the security what matters, not even its utility or its (hopefully) seamless UX, but its appeal.
The ultimate challenge for the SafeNetwork is to have a specific appeal and elicit desire for normal people to migrate.

But to make it attractive to the masses, the emphasis in its promotion shouldn’t be on how secure or decentralizes or anonymous it is. We have to consider that security and anonymity are a given or a boring commodity, there are other “priorities” in the consumer’s minds, if you want to market it:

  1. First, what is fun/cool about it? (or why should I tell my friends about it?)
  2. Secondly, how does it make my life easier? (how convenient it is?)
  3. Thirdly, what is in it for me? (how it benefits me?)
  4. What does it have that my current solution doesn’t (what’s unique about it?)

maybe we should be looking to ourselves for not being noticed enough to be mentioned. Clearly we need to do more marketing to show that we are the number 1 solution.

I know that of several other players wanting to become the solution for decentralizing the web. Think of synereo, and yes, its not completely the same but if they are earlier to market it can become the solution. Video2000 of Philips was way better than any other VHS player but lost the market for being to late and crappy marketing.

As stated in this topic. Pressure is mounting on decentralizing the internet, think Maidsafe can’t wait much longer on introducing a working version of the network…

It feels like you missed the essence of my point because I agree with most of what you say, just not the conclusions you draw from it?!

People don’t care about their privacy and security in theory, but they do want to be able to break the law. Even the most respectable and honest among us. Freedom is important in a practical, not ideological sense.

People don’t need to care about abstract ideas like privacy and security or even freedom for them to want to download their film or buy their contraband.

I find it impossible to fathom how the average person would not be immediately drawn to the practical implications/potential that is offered to them by the underlying reality behind those apparently abstract ideas.

If I think about my mum, sister or wife - and they seem very normal/average to me - none care about politics or the philosophy of freedom; none would give a damn about SAFE in theory. Yet, all three would instantly download and install SAFE for the opportunity to be safer and worry less about breaking crazy laws (in their own peculiar ways). None of them do anything even a little bit immoral (imo), yet they certainly would all use SAFE.

Uncensored youtube that has everyone’s favourite tv, music and film, but without any consideration for copywrite laws?! Ebay with all your party drugs and everything else you might not be able to get hold of?!

There are a million cool things that will help keep people on SAFE and impress users, but the very obvious draw to it are the consequences of privacy, security, freedom, rather than the theoretical value of those ideas. As you say, the appeal is what is important. That is some pretty sexy and practical appeal if you ask me. It also guarantees a lot of media coverage so everyone will quickly know where to go to use the unrestricted youtube/ebay etc.

Decentralised web solutions that don’t really focus on security, privacy, freedom will have a much steeper slope to climb imo. Censor resistance is HUGE in terms of mass appeal.

I still think that box is ticked before we start with SAFE, but I guess time will tell :wink:


Yeah, I agree with you… I was simply stating that we shouldn’t focus so much on “security, anonymity, and freedom” as the sales pitch, but exactly on the points you make as examples.
But of course, the “benefits” you mention can’t be used for official promotional material.

Also, as I mentioned in other posts, I think that for PR purposes the FIRST solutions offered on SafeNetwork SHOULDN’T BE fringe or illegal markets, otherwise we risk to get labelled for that kind of activities only and scare away other legitimate development on the network.
Priming is VERY important ( )

Strategically speaking, I think the first solutions should be enterprise solutions, imagine a HIM (Health information management) solution to protect the medical history of their patients, that would validate the model and seal its legitimacy to the public.
Even enabling free speech on censored countries would be huge.
If THEN there are illegal markets popping up, the narrative can be constructed as “well, and it happens to have sprouted some fringe markets taking advantage of the strong security of the network”.

But if the first solutions are illegal markets, I think it will be hard and slower to see a wider adoption as it will be labelled as “ah, yeah that network for illegal activities, the TOR on steroids?, no thanks”. No company will want to be associated with that, and it will be a really tough sell.

If we focus on legitimate solutions first, the illegal markets will follow anyway sooner or later.
If we focus on illegitimate solutions first, the legitimate players will probably want to stay away, probably for good.


Firstly, the people around you aren’t a good random sample, the most probable case is that the people around you are akin to you, and you might be part of a niche and yet be unaware of it (generalizing the attributes and beliefs of your group to the general population)
But, I bet that if you talk about that with a random sample of people in the streets, they might agree with you in principle, and yet have all their lives poured in Facebook and Google, being completely unaware of how they gave up their rights to privacy and freedom for the convenience of using the clouds.
The thing is that the concept of freedom in the online world is really tricky unless you are really deep into privacy advocacy groups.

1 Like

I agree with many things but

Its hard to stop people from useing the system in that what it does best. I think their will be silk roads, and some blackmarket transactions.

Bitcoin had the same, but eventually it iwll get better.

1 Like

Yep, as Bob says, in ideal world I agree that would certainly be better. I don’t think we’ll get much choice in the matter though… people gonna do what people gonna do.

I think this is all going to be well out of our hands the moment it launches tbh. I think we’re all going to have to accept that decentralised means completely out of anyone’s control.

Fair play though, if you can think of any way to help steer the ship that way in its reputation building phase then I’m all for it. I just think we’re going to get pulled through one heck of a storm, but as long as the ship is sturdy enough to take any and all weather we’ll come out the other side of it.

1 Like

Dont forget that this will bring a huge amount of money to maidsafe, and also a lot of media attention “good and bad ones”

But the main concern for me is what if the goverment want to stop it

If they can stop it they will. If they can’t they can only legislate, which given the context (private and secure hence unknown to them) would seem to be a bit of a joke… it’s now illegal to do that thing we can’t know or prove that you’re doing.

If they can’t stop it then any publicity is good publicity imo, it just gets the word out.

What else could any govt do? (genuine question)

1 Like

What if they stop it before they launch it will this be possible?

I have no idea im not really a law person, so i cant know.

Please do a search. There have been a few very large topics about this. Conclusion is that very little will happen, even after all the doomsayers claimed all sorts of things.

Look at Tor, have they stopped it???

1 Like

Yeah, I don’t think there’s any chance of big brother surprising us really. It all comes down to how robust it is. Wouldn’t it be the most amazing thing if it really worked as we all hope it will? I mean… just fekin wow!!! Even after a year of having my first few ‘moments’ thinking about it all, it still gives me goosebumps to consider the implications and potential - most of it really good for society and not just about folks getting high or pirating data.

Really we shouldn’t underestimate them. That’s the biggest mistake. If I was a bad actor, I would get my devs in, at least one in a key cryptographic position and try to sabotage the software in a way nobody will realise for as long as possible. I would already be spying on MS, and try to figure out their weaknesses for social engineering. And and and, don’t get me started.
Stuff like that happens over and over again and open src communities are (so far) very ill equipped to prevent it, imho.

1 Like

I would be interested in where this has happened in similar projects to bitcoin, SAFE, Etherium. I need to check in on these occurrences so any help in reading up on them would be appreciated, thanks

Just a comment though, SAFE at the moment is like a hundred or more other projects to the ABCs. Its vaporware to them since its not any bigger than a local network and security is lax at the moment. They won’t be interested till its somewhere. To place a person in each of these projects of such a caliber to fool everyone and produce quality work is a very tall order.