I do agree, and I like it ! You describe very well people living under oppressive political regimes, and their fundamental need for ways to communicate and express safely.
On a larger scope, we all as world citizen, have been deprived from our fundamental privacy rights, not that much by governments, but rather by corporations and advertisement industry acting through the arms of corrupted governments. It is indeed our fundamental right to create ways to conduct our interactions between free and responsible humans ,safely, with little risk, expense and inconvenience.
I do agree, and I like it ! You describe very well people living under oppressive political regimes, and their fundamental need for ways to communicate and express safely.
I definitely agree on this, and think the most successful apps will be built on these brand new features only made possible by SAFE.
But don’t forget that adding cryptocurrency, absolute privacy, and decentralisation to regular clearnet apps (social networking, games, videos, etc) will be completely amazing and popular also!
I think that’s all that was missing here.
That bit about popcorn time… This is where I would love to see referenda to revoke charters and outlaw business models and then when the people don’t get it petitions and head hunter movements to remove judges that try to block the action and then go again in the cycle to get it done. Also movements that produce the names or sell out politicians and tie their acts to their names on something like wanted posters that follow them around everywhere on the internet where their name appears like “wanted for” posters, almost like a bounty. We can do the same with things like the length of copyright and even trade laws we don’t like, just straight up unilaterally revoke this crap and set precedent.
What will Germany do next (?)t 800 Euros for using SAFE because its evidence of Popcorn time. The same referenda should be used to go after politicians who took bribes (any kind of sponsorship) for the stupid popcorn time law. You do something that harms the public (not always clear) especially for private gain or profit then you should be toast and it should follow like a transcript or a conviction. We have to lose our tolerance for white collar crime and acts of suppression because its killing us. We need something like the generally accepted as safe test, its not profit as the priority and then public interest last, its profit as guilty until proven innocent everything there is the slightest hint of real conflict with the public interest. No more privileging for profit commercial stuff, it has to end, it does’t matter if society is hostile toward business that’s actually good real products will still make it through and get the love they deserve and spam and scam artists with will get the filter they deserve.
Not really; at least I don’t see it. I’d say that the vast majority of the people using current social media think they’re just fine, and will not move for the reasons that you state. And those large, existing companies often have the backing of the ruling elite; Google and Facebook both have CIA roots, and Microsoft’s origins are somewhat inexplicable (having a red carpet treatment from IBM). Even if they started out clean, they probably co-operate with intelligence agencies now. That all means tremendous inertia in the system that would require a major push to topple them.
I don’t see the masses taking the red pill - they are relatively content in their programmed obliviousness.
I agree. The most successful apps are going to be the ones that SAFE makes “Killer”…
If people want to develop other more everyday apps, more power to them but they will have a pretty steep battle getting a sustainable adoption rate… Many of the things people are wanting to build are simply oxymoronic. A privacy supporting Facebook, for example is totally silly. The reason Facebook is successful is because it connects people to the people of their past, and there is no way to do this without “knowing your customers” and acting upon that knowledge.
The killer apps are going to be the ones that draw people into SAFE. That is probably the boring stuff like password keepers and Bitcoin wallets – Stuff that needs to be absolutely secure.
The killer apps could be mutations of existing, clearnet apps if the developers consider what the users of the app might really want and then take that to the limit, if one no longer has to consider legal boundaries of any sort.
For example, existing apps help people do such things as find a place to live, save money, make money, “get in touch” with old acquaintances, chat with like-minded people.
It might take a while, because there’s tremendous inertia in the existing systems that keeps people doing the same old things and thinking the same old ways even though the accustomed boundaries have weakened to the breaking point: I’m reminded of Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff and taking a few seconds to understand that he is standing in mid-air.
[EDIT] Some examples of my use of the paradigm that I touched upon above, of considering what people want:
People like to watch sport.
As it happens, exclusive rights to televise sporting events are expensive to obtain for conglomerates such as Sky. they pay top dollar for such rights. One SAFE app might be a restreaming service, that takes some sporting event and retransmits it.
Ditto for movies, restreamed one day after their official release.
People are interested in “celebrities.”
A SAFE “media” business might make the average paparazzi seem like prudes, literally hounding celebs to death. The existing mass media like to dabble in that: appealing to the sadism and envy of the crowd. Such a business could make the most lurid tabloid look staid by comparison.
Same for court cases which have gag orders on them.
In fact, you organize a war: Not just the twitter events of the faux, color revolutions. I mean a real insurgency war.
As soon as we start decentralizing things we wants to start creating his own little kingdom. How cute. All hail Emporor Warren!
No state = no centralized authority = no rule by force = no law backed by force. The only thing that will work is collaboration by consent and contract. My question for you @Warren is if you believe people “should” do something are you willing to get your batsuit on and go make sure it does happen or are you just going to go turn on the batsignal and WAIT for someone else to do it for you? If you believe in using violence against others to enforce your morals upon them do you have the integrity to take responsibility for initiating that violence and force and the consequences thereof? That is to say would you be willing to take personal responsibility for your actions and beliefs?
They may not care about security and privacy but I think they may adopt SAFE because of the economic incentive and because of the private communication it offers. Also over time the massive file transfer protocols would come in handy. So they might care from a security perspective but rather a pragmatic and practical one instead.
I would start with a decentralized FanDuel / Draftkings. Obviously there is a healthy market for such thing. Government cannot seem to keep from interfering. With SAFE or Ethereum you could make such a thing where There was no central authority in any jurisdiction and where the customers are anonymous.
Those are the kind of apps that are going to thrive on SAFE - because they are not allowed to thrive elsewhere.
But along the way to decentralization there is the desire to reverse the centralization on the centralizers when its so flagrant. I’ve never used Popcorn time but fines for Popcorn time! It will be fines for SAFE next. Its like they get to charge you if they don’t get to abuse you.
I don’t see current business culture or the unfettered free market as acceptable solutions or even the core of acceptable solutions rather I seem them as the majority of the problem. I want people first even if it means individualism is softened a bit. But I see that decentralization will change the culture and demote the market. When people are more independent they are less dependent on the market, and not everyone wants to hock trinkets. Someone who can meet most of their basic needs on their own will be less enthused about the market. If you can generate your own electricity and your phone in itself (node) can cut the cord (G5 soft radio) on the telcos then you aren’t necessarily as interested in the market for gas or phone service. The market for batteries and solar panels might still matter but that’s a far more intermittent proposition- the cord is cut.
SAFE and popcorn time cut the cords but just like Germany is trying to punish people for doing so Nevada is trying to punish people retroactively for cutting the cord on the bs natural gas industry and what allows that is the unfettered free market for politicians for sale. I don’t see an issue choosing winners and losers in some cases. Natural gas is better than oil but relative to current and future solar it needs to be a back up solution. and there are a million and one good reasons for this.
But…but… they just bought 2,200 MAID and it’d be really cool if MaidSafe Inc. spent $200,000 on implementing some WordPress feature (completely unsuitable for SAFE) so that they can save $70 on hosting expenses in 2016!
Excuse me what? If people are free to make their own decisions then they are free to better their lives. I put people first too, that’s why I’m an advocate for freedom, individualism and decentralization. What do you think the unfettered free market means? It means a decentralized voluntary exchange of goods and services with no central authority dictating what people can or cannot exchange. SAFE is the epitimoy of a free market. Capitalism != Corporatism.
This is true but keep in mind this too is a market force and also keep in mind that self sufficiency has it’s costs as well. Food needs to be planted, grown, harvested and preserved. And for that you need to maintain the soil and have sun and sufficient water. Solar/wind generators need to be maintained and kept in working order. Your house needs to be kept in good repair. Water needs to be collected and filtered. As for internet you still need some way to connect to the internet, you need power for your computer and you need to pay for hardware and inferstructure for it to run on. And in the case of SAFE your use of the network isn’t free, it’s paid for with safecoin and that’s generated by devoting resources to the network. Tanstafl Warren, tanstafl.
But you’re right self sufficiency does give one true independence and end reliance upon some centralized authority be it power companies, Big Ag, Telcos, water companies or anyone else.
First off SAFE doesn’t cut the cords, not quite. Not until SAFE impliments mesh capabilities and the mesh network starts growing like crazy. At the present time SAFE is still reliant on the current internet and established telcos. Also read what you just said. What allows Navada and Germany to punish people for cutting the cords is for politicians to be bought and pass laws against it. It’s not market that’s punishing people it’s the state that is being bribed by those with lots of money, and therefore co-opted by the market rather than simply the market affecting people directly. Can you demonstrate how the market itself is punishing people for becoming self sufficient, not how the state is passing laws to punish people for becoming self sufficient, but how the market itself is doing it though it’s normal operation of voluntary exchange? If we did not have government, if we did not have a coercive authority, would we have the same problem interfering with one’s ability to be self sufficient?
This is kind of beside the point. Whether one chooses natural gas or solar or oil isn’t the point. The issue at hand is they should be free to choose what they will without some government interfering.
But we don’t want to use words that run counter to our intent. “Corporatism” doesn’t have much connection to freedom and its counter to any useful individual freedom. At this people, especially the economists who spout those terms (including “free market”) almost never in a historical context and never in a philosophical context and not even in a practical context actually mean freedom in any honest sense, quite the opposite- its lip service at best. I understand what you mean but different language would serve better. A very important nuance on this is the current economists who spout this stuff really are shills, they either don’t believe or at least they don’t believe it unconsciously and they’re in denial to keep their jobs- note they’re not free. There is enough data to foreclose on this stuff and they know this but its become a dogma a kind of religion and admitting extreme error here means they get marginalized while still alive so they go on lying with all their might desperately hoping for a reversal and supporting empire which tries to make them right by fiat. Some of these shills are prominent economists on the left.
And the other thing is trade is not really the key, although try having technology with out. Yes material goods are important and essential to quality of life, but the issue runs deeper. The term and even the concept ‘free trade’ is wound up in so much face level dishonest, stuff like “freedom of contract” which in use and intent is the ‘freedom’ of coercion the freedom to bully (room for crime) with arbitrary economic leverage. There is no room for privilege in your end points but the very soul of those terms your using is privilege. We always get stuff like: you can’t have fairness because that would imply planning and planning kills dynamism and good outcomes. But fairness is the point, there really isn’t any useful freedom without fairness. We don’t just stand by and let bullies act because its tradition or because they are free.
As far as the free lunch, we’ve paid for our lunch with the blood and sweat it took to bring the pending level of automation and the sun and universe have always provided motive force. The 5G tech is dangerous for the phone companies and the cable companies because it turns out that stuff like P Cell is real but it was just an isolated case, bandwidth, proximity/non interference, signal quality have been vastly improved and latency, power usage, cost have gone down really radically. It really does look like many of the problems of mesh are solved so that phones as mesh can replace the telco networks and even the back bones- transoceanic is more of a stretch. But cutting the cord on them and getting rid of their unnecessary enclosure/toll-road and meddling is making a market more friendly and less bully oriented. That is one market where the profit is used to lobby and constantly argue and spin against free speech, its survival to cut that cord. The remaining market would be handset makers and at maybe at some point that’s all FOSS printable.
I think Oil is special case. Even beyond climate considerations its the main cord we need to cut to cut the other cords. At this point continuing to choose it would be like continuing to choose diabetes. Its the heart of centralization and authority plays. We need a radically more efficient source of power. The so called fossil fuels are obsolete.
I can give you an example of user who will be happy with:
- Decentralized, secured “dropbox” feature
- Secure messaging
- Secure torrenting and filesharing
That’s not the 99% but it will be the a part of the starting crowd.
But in terms of changing the world for the better its potentially huge even if it doesn’t attract everyone at once.
Just because corporate fascists have perverted the language with their double talk doesn’t mean the language shouldn’t be used in it’s proper context and original intent. How else can the meaning of words be preserved?
Please define this but I think I know where you’re going with this. Person A owning more wealth than person B is not bullying. Bullying someone is when you usue outright force.
Privilage to do what granted by whom? Money or power does not confer a privilege. One either earns their wealth, is given it by aother or takes it by force. If one is given it then the question arises how their beneficiary receive it? However the act of receiving a gift is still voluntary and cannot be faulted in and of itself. A Right is an attribute one is born with. A privilage is an attribute one is granted by another who has power. So I ask you to what authority are you asscribing this privilege you speak of?
I have nothing against planning or planned economies so long as one can opt in or out of them voluntarily and freely. You wan to go start a commune be my guest I won’t stop you. The problems arise when you try and force others to join your commune at gun point or stay in it when they want to leave. If everyone is free to voluntarily interact, exchange goods and communcate how is that not fair? They all have the same rights and freedoms. But perhaps to be more to the point equal measures of prosparity isn’t fair either. Everyone getting the same amount of pie isn’t fair. Because then you require coercion and you get mediocrity.
Which is why I oppose the state and taxation. Because to mass rob people is a form of bullying.
I agree but it’s still their choice as whether or not to use fossil fuels. Keep in mind there are places that are inaccesable without a car. And then there’s one independence to consider. Public transit requires a shedule of some kind.
I hope so too!! 20 chars
There really is not point in arguing with Warren. He hates tyranny to the point that he advocates tyranny.
You can spend a year pointing out his hypocrisy, but he keeps on barreling forward with it.
Socialists hate our government, but for some reason they think that if you give the government more power and responsibility the government will suddenly and magically be just and responsible. How? Well they skip that part, and assume that the “revolution” will address it, but revolutions are about power, and don’t solve the problems of power.
Pearls to Swine.
Lets not go off topic with political discussions.
You are at liberty to start a complementary topic exploring the political aspects of this in the “off-topic” category.
Ok, but if I may, @Blindsite2k and @jreighley the issue isn’t equal pie its sufficient pie for all and being free of this core dictum of: you work so we don’t have to- and then blaming those who don’t have for not working or working enough.
@Blindsite2k its not just word that get twisted but the supposed champions get snatched https://aeon.co/essays/conservatives-can-t-claim-edmund-burke-as-one-of-their-own
@neo we’ll take it elsewhere.