i had enough of the click baits and all the fake news fake apps and so on
as i came accros this safe network thing today i wanted to ask you creators of this network if you can create a ban system for whoever create fake content or maybe does clickbait
1 Like
The safe network is resistant against censorship and has no mechanism built in to it. In other words the network cannot censor any content or Apps. Otherwise then any “authority” could force censorship within the network.
Any filtering/censorship will be done at the user level by the user installing an App that filters out content the user does not want. Its just a user filtering the content they see and not the network doing any censoring.
So the answer is that the network will do nothing in relation to fake news or click bait
You might find more info in these topics on fake news.
9 Likes
thats simply sad that you want to create safe wich wont be safe while toxic people will be allowed to make a safe community unsafe.This will just take the safe word out making it only a simple network
1 Like
SAFE is “Secure Access For Everyone”, not safe access
Also you cannot stop fake news nor click bait without hiring a ton of people to check every site and approve every site or App. That is a whitelisted network where nothing appears till approved by some authority
And if you allow this then we have what China is implementing and that is a total censorship system which is not safe for anyone. What you wish for will cause more problems for our safety than not censoring at all. And that includes every whistle blower alive who would be quickly incarcerated under a “safe” censored network.
9 Likes
well what if i am looking for some kind of software then i download it and as it was fake it will compromise my device or my information like it happens on the normal network as well this is what i am talking about and if you dont count this as unsafe then what would unsafe be for you?
Well like today you use some intelligence and only download from known sources from known software. There will be plenty of “App Stores” on the SAFE network which will have reviews, reputation, etc for the Apps listed.
One advantage of SAFE is that once an APP is stored on the network then the datamap for the App ensures it will not change. The App store lists the App with its datamap and then it cannot be changed since the storage is immutable.
Also even totally censored Apps can be fake so they seem perfectly good, but on a certain day then compromise every computer using the App.
So there is no secure way to do what you wish.
3 Likes
well i know how to keep myself safe i made this topic for other naive people mostly who are looking for a safe environment in all aspects so they wont be reading fake news or downloading dangerous apps or geting scammed on thats what i mean by safe.if something like this happens to them then they would have wasted time resources and maybe lost money or exposed their personal information over suspicious people like it happens all the time around the internet
There was no need for this topic, since there are topics already that clearly cover this information. At no stage does SAFE claim to he “safe” from fake news and is stated in those other topics.
2 Likes
You write as you were expecting the project SAFE network to address all semantic possibilities of the word safe to not be considered a misnomer, that is just platonic.
The word “safe” applied to technologies can only mean reliability and security from technical threats (as in being tamper-proof, unexploitable through clever manipulations of vulnerabilities), that’s it, period.
But in this case SAFE stands for “Safe Access for Everyone” which implies an uncensorable network, where anyone can access without any restrictions, which expands it’s scope from being just about reliable communications and being hacking-proof (for server based exploits), but also anonymous, obfuscated and censorship-resistant.
What you are expecting is the absolute opposite to that, what you want is known as a “walled garden”. Apple became the perfect example of a closed platform that treats it’s users as idiots with the excuse of offering a safe curated marketplace, and in return their users are in this devil’s bargain of giving up control of their devices and the software they can install in their devices.
If you the need to be pampered and protected by some overlords, the default trade-off is then to delegate that decision power to those who you rely upon.
If you don’t want a walled garden and also want to have some kind of a social filter detecting deception, you are essentially expecting a magical system that would protect people from themselves, that is way beyond the scope of any project.
5 Likes
Its important to note that information sources of safe are cryptographically verifiable. The advantage being that spoofing is impossible. So if your ever in doubt about the validity of the publishers credentials just check the ID. 
2 Likes
To be absolutely clear
SAFE has never claimed to do any of this. It would be a STUPID person who cannot read the label on the box that would use SAFE thinking they were being protected from any of what you say.
Even the most casual reading of this forum or the sites Maidsafe have put up shows its secure communications and not a walled safety garden safe from scammers
It would be a person who sees the word SAFE and IGNORES everything else that would be fooled into thinking they are in a safe little haven protected from the baddies.
SAFE has in its very title the fact that it is “SECURE ACCESS FOR EVERYONE”. Secure access of course is secure from prying eyes. Not some convoluted “safe from scammers/fake stuff”
BTW what do these people use to protect themselves from scammers who knock at their front door selling them stuff. I reckon it is their intelligence and experience and that is whats needed for any network.
4 Likes
Apple’s walled garden certainly isn’t Eden. Have you seen the logo 
With filtering and active moderation functionality I think something (e.g. safe://space_cb) can be built that resembles the needs of the OP.
2 Likes
Not possible for the complete network of course. But maybe if you restrict yourself to only visiting e.g. safe://MySpace, which is moderated by people who have the same idea like you what fake news and click bait is…
4 Likes
Beyond the idea of anonymity and decentralization, I’m interested in Safe Network because for a while (how long it lasts is hard to predict), it will be like living tribally in America prior to 1492.
There will be a period when stupidity in its sheer form will be absent from the network. They will come eventually, probably following the lambo people, and they will ruin plenty of things someway, somehow, but as far as content goes, it will be quite a paradise – breeze, sun and rainbow – for a while.
I think that if you tried to create a tool for moderation and censorship along with the Safe Network, you simply wouldn’t create the Safe Network.
5 Likes
Yes, one wonders how we lived a hundred years ago when governments, companies, and anyone else for that matter were not able to listen in on private conversations between people or see private dealings.
And 100 years ago where was the censorship or authorities at the door with you when the travelling salesman knocked. Or in the store (from woolworths to doggy jacks) with you to protect you from scams or fake labelled clothing. Oh the humanity, how did the world survive, how did the human condition improve without all the censorship and surveillance.
Amazing how people equate technology to a way to censor more and surveillance. SAFE is the opposite of that and to free us back to the times when privacy meant exactly that and we will reverse the last 25 years of increasing surveillance and censorship. That way society can get back to the road of improving by allowing people to have private lives again when they want it.
As an aside have a look at the privacy statements of most websites and see how they claim your privacy is ever so important and yet most of the time they have a clause which says they will reveal your info to 3rd parties under certain conditions. ← ie they can sell your info anytime they want to even if they say they will not sell it.
4 Likes
Actually in most countries around the world at some point in history banned gatherings of three or more people, because they feared of conspiracies against the government (or the social order).
Before the French revolution it was all about censorship
about almost everything, it was there where the freedom of speech and the right of assembly was born in the western world, but with caveats.
“Unlawful assembly” is still a thing, and the core rules are still the same today.
And now that we don’t need to be physically present to communicate (and/or plot), the same fear is now applied today towards the means of communication.
PS: places like China and North Korea are still a surveillance state, and they are the vestige of a system of the past without civil rights. In those countries it is still illegal to critizise the authorities, self-censorship is considered common sense and they are indoctrinated (and rewarded) to snitch anyone in your families or friends who are critical of the government.
2 Likes
Yes we had that in Queensland in the 70’s because the government feared the people but claimed it was to protect the people.
In any case this is not a case of censorship laws stopping private conversations or preventing people saying things to each other privately.
Unlawful assembly is not stopping communications, it is to stop physical uprisings where people march or cause disturbance in the streets.
As you say plotting does not need assembly and the laws know this and does not try to stop private communications.
The fear of private communications may always have been around but could not be stopped. Although I agree that now the governments have increasingly been equating technology as a way to snoop on even “private” communications.
1 Like
That’s really sad.
I think that the fears of the past are the same today, and the techniques of control are just adapting to the times.
Before the only way to stop you to communicate was by banning gatherings, then they wanted to tap your cables and now they want your cryptographic keys.
It is the same shit with different smell.
But now with decentralized technologies, especially autonomous ones, they will lose the edge (maybe forever?)
2 Likes
Yes but in true Aussie form we protested anyhow and the jails could not hold enough people and not enough police to arrest even a fraction of the protestors. It brought about change (eventually)
More like increasing with the times. We used to have private communications, now that is almost non-existent in population centres and via telecommunications. They are not just keeping up but are dramatically reducing our private interactions.
Take google “home” device or “echo”. How many people have them in their bedrooms listening in on their private times together. Google Home device instructions even has a “safety” warning to warn visitors that their conversations may be recorded (ie will be recorded). Even the “echo” device records all as evidenced by a court (murder trial) requesting and getting copies of recordings.
So people don’t realise that their private conversations are increasingly being recorded all the time.
At least SAFE will allow private communications again.