Please go all the way on making this an app store. If you did standard app store features and charged for promotion in the app or the app’s recommendation engine, you’d be first to market when the safenet gets a killer app and goes stupid.
I don’t find a problem with the idea of an safe app facilitating casual sex, it’s the marketing it as anonymous that bugs me. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, one of the parties is gonna have a smart phone and that right there gives the NSA all they need to crack some heads for more info.
Maybe its a DACOOP or DACO, as DAC seems to be distributed automated corporation, which in retrospect seems like a nightmare to the DACOOP’s heaven. So it either sounds like flying the coop or a Cadilac, or a taco.
Nah. Promoted apps are almost always garbage. The app store that has the most organic ranking and rating system and takes the least amount of money from app devs is the one that will prevail.
I also think there’s been talk of the SAFE launcher including an app store, so there’s going to be a default app store. Knowing Irvine and his buddies, it won’t include manipulated rankings.
First to market AND free of money=power garbage? Good luck with your sponsored app store taking off man.
Which says your stuff is actually good: You bribing the app store or people being excited about it and giving it massive amounts of good ratings because it’s awesome?
I’m not sure how people got Pay-for-rank out of pay-for-promotion, particularily in light of how services like Duckduck Go keep the ads light, obvious, and the result quality high.
No they still absolutely suck. Let advertising and you end up with sponsored puppet supply side media and you lose all your rights. It so damn simple. Plus you end up with info enclosure and attempts to be paid for censorship and bribery (again sponsored media.) Also you don’t own other people’s attention and can’t pay for it in a system that properly puts all the power with the end user. Its not a balance issue. The end user is the only real stake holder because we are all end users even if we develop for a living. Nope, none of this stuff where A pay’s B to exploit C with modal ads that turn more and more into one way media meant to drown out and spin and work to try to cancel the neutrality anti lock out principle that allowed the net to thrive for a while. No, neutrality crucial anonymity and anti tracking and non confiscation of attention are hard wired in. Don’t need any of that crap if you have honest functional search with proper anonymous social up-vote.
Get rich quick, almost always a scam that should lead to time.
@Warren I would argue that a system that cut out ads would simply require advertisers to become more creative. Say dropping mentions of a brand name here or there inside of a skit, short story, play, television program or novel. What you are objecting to is not advertising but rather the ratio of advertising to actual content. Would you object to Harry Dresden from the Dresden files being allowed to drink a coke? Lots of people drink coca cola (granted I think it’s disgusting and I know it’s absolutely horrible for you but that’s not the point here), it’s part of his character and not outside the norm, nor when you’re reading the books is it in anyway in your face (I think Jim Butcher was using it as a substitute for the perverbial “go get me a beer” line and just ran with it but that’s conjecture.). When you’re writing and creating a character, especially one set in a modern setting you kind of have to use modern day brand names and allusions in order to add realism to the characters and world you are creating. Therefore in doing so marketing for various companies is pretty much impossible to avoid. I think the bigger issue would be authors getting paid for said advertising by the aforementioned companies.
@Blindsite2k what you’re suggesting is what is very much in line with the free speech doctrine of the earlier Supreme court where their primary concern with commercial speech was with the dilution of vital political and hence the would allow commercial speech to much more readily be curtailed. I think most of us here see it as noise and understand that it can result in censorship because of its volume. And I grant that working to eliminate every possible occurrence may be counter productive, but I don’t want it to remain economically viable. I see a system where honest accurate non sponsored search replaces advertising. This will align the interest of services/business and the customers they serve and get rid of political filter and info enclosure. Such system also deal with spam by disincentivising it. Honest search brings you the best available match for what you are looking for.
But I wonder if the brands survive. From the DNS free conversation was talk about name free sights (if I understood) and that may move us in the direction of getting away from brands and their personally expensive mindshare. I’d say brands tak up too much mind share to begin with. How much is it healthy for children or adults to be thinking about the Apple brand. Silicon exes and even Jobs understood things. We don’t want a mind where thoughts (troublesome and repetitive as they are) are supplanted by slogans and jingles. Kids killing each other over the branding on basket ball shoes. Other kids being ostracized for not being able to associate themselves through purchase validation with brands. Kids insisting on eating shit because of brand recognition.
I understand you want to focus on searching instead of advertising however my point is ever if one is simply to write a book or create content and one’s focus is not advertising but simply content creationg the advertising can be created as a byproduct none the less. To what extreme are you going to take your views? That all brand names or names in general are going to be banned? Are we going to just call stuff by various seriel numbers then? Product x3409 or Produce C2D9S or something random like that? God forbid we have a memorable name that might become a “brand name” and might become advertised, the horror! You say you want things search based, well if I’m searching for the Dresden files I have a right to do that just like I have a right to search for any other kind of content. As do other content creators have a right to produce content and have it searched for. They also have a right to create content that bears reference to modern day products and services. Whehter the content’s aim is to market those products or services or not is irrelivant, they still have a right to produce the content. Let’s compare advertising to any other genre of writing. I hate reality TV shows, does that mean I have a right to ban the genre from being aired so that no one can watch Survivor or Big Brother or American/Canadian Idol or any of those God awful shows? No. It just means I don’t want to watch them and want to filter them out. I don’t really care for bad writing either but should a book be banned because it doesn’t measure up to my standard? No. Likewise you don’t care for advertising, neither do I, neither do a lot of people but does that mean it should be banned? Where does advertising end and creative writing begin? How do you seperate the two?
I think as better search engines and filters to get rid of spam are created that excess advertising will become less of an issue. Advertisers are already taking a hit as less and less people are watching mainstream TV.
We are in essential agreement. I am not for keeping qualify product information from reaching people who need it. As above we can do systems that cut out the need for wasteful advertising and align the long and short term interests of business and their customers. Just don’t like attention thieving and don’t see it as a balance issue at all. But there is no real or desirable way of riding message embedding without seriously harming discourse. Although its not been effective enough to keep sponsor power going which is great, doesn’t work that well in games etc. There may be a threshold on signal to noise, but I am still skeptical of slippery slopes taking us back to the sponsor noise dominance we have today. Our attention does define us, if we are free to use it and not having it coerced for profit we’ve likely gone far enough.
But I can’t ever see a place for end user loss of control of the end user interface such as pop ups or modals and loss of control over the scroll bar or stuff that auto plays that we can turn off or volume manipulation etc., which implies SAFE browser and SAFE OS. I see smart honest unsponsored search and up voting clearing out the spam. I see the SAFE economic model hopefully also helping to rid the world of sponsorship. And I see total end user control over SAFE hardware and software products going a long way, especially total end user control over all end user interfaces and all systems settings. I also see the SAFE model on default anonymity helping cut the tracking pay cord.
why don’t you move up to the mountains, and live a solitary life. /s
There is nothing wrong with sponsorship as well. Would you like to do things you love to do, and have a sponsor pay you for doing whatever you’re doing? Of course! Gaming sponsorship has netted gamers far greater than without. The growth of esports went sporadically, pros get paid to play.
There are a lot of niche markets and people get paid for it. They shouldn’t be punished. What you’re proposing is punishing people from being creative, and limit everybody’s imagination.
Seems like I’ve thought about this a little more than you have. Sponsorship is patronage. Its bribery and in practice censorship and blackmail. In the world you’re espousing people have to depend on the pathetic charity of the rich instead of having what they need to be their own persons. And for the record I hate sports sponsorship, and I am not a fan of the Olympics and I question the good it does in international relations. I don’t give a damn about the glorification of supposedly special people or abilities and I don’t have enough pack animal in me to care about sports beyond the joy it brings to others. Mit Romney being involved in the Olympics says everything.
Might want to check out the countless threads and replies that affirm sponsorship sucks on this site first.
Yep that’s pretty much what you get when you aren’t self sustaining. So what you’re actually saying here is you want to promote self sufficiency so people don’t have to rely on getting a Sugar Daddy/Momma to fund them and then have influence over them by holding their purse strings. But the problem here is banning advertising doesn’t solve the problem. Advertising and sponsorship is a symptom. The real problem is the lack of self sufficiency. People don’t WANT ads on their sites or whatever else, it’s unsightly. So your question should be not how do you attack sponsorship but how do you promote self sufficiency to the point that advertising becomes obsolete and so droll people don’t want to engage in it.
Another useful app to make, would be a surf forecast. For a specific set of surfers, they go online to check this, their finances, and spend most the rest of their time offline. I know I would use it.
If they got SAFE they could use that time they were offline to farm safecoin. Just set up their vaults and forget it until they’re ready to check for the next surf forecast. You might even get a small network developing along the beach with all the cell phones or laptops farming away while their owners surfed in the waves. (Or have them farming at home but same idea.)
