This topic will end up in #off-topic if the political talk continues. Don’t want this to end up a political discussion. Some will occur but this has the potential to be a heated debate on political grounds.
You don’t want to get into a debate but you try to counterargument in a long reply. Right. You find that perspective very strange. That’s preciecely the point. People will have viewpoints DIFFERENT to your own.
You’re basing your premise about pedophilia on generalizations and assumptions, both of the pedophile and that of anyone below the legal age of consent, which is ironic considering that’s what much of this debate hinges on.
- You assume all “pedophiles” are the same.
- You assume all minors are the same.
- You make generalizing statements about both groups.
- You generalize pedophiles as “using children for their own desires” as if no human relationships exist or as if adults haven’t been known to use one another.
But here let me underline the key moral issue for you. Your type disregards and dismisses a child’s ability to consent or not consent: to make a choice for themselves either way, while supposedly “protecting them”. That from my perspective is both hypocritical and as bad as rape. And I EXPERIENCED IT first hand because I went through the child protection system when I was a kid. I get it you want to save the children. Here’s the thing if you don’t respect consent of the child you can’t do that. When they reach out for help or when they don’t. Your rebuttle will be developmental and that children can’t understand enough to consent. Oddly enough we think they have enough reason for other things like vaccinations, driving at 14, school council elections, and all kinds of crazy things. What I’m saying here is you don’t really have a leg to stand on with me if you’re going to make system that routinely violates one’s consent and treats them like an object. I’d rather have pedophilia be legal and have children have legal rights just like everyone else than have them treated like objects. Rape is rape. If you violate someone’s consent it’s rape. If you don’t it’s not. The age shouldn’t be the issue. You can’t really advocate for child rights and autonomy without allowing for pedophilia. Being physically dependent on others should not mean one is legally subjugated by others.
If one is in a relatonship where one is routinely coerced and manipulated of course that’s going to affect their development badly. But again that’s why consent needs to be taken seriously as consent isn’t just about saying yes, it’s also about saying no as well and learning about putting up barriers. And in a world with Hollywood elites that try to sexually abuse actresses in exchange for fame and fortune training children about proper consent young and putting up proper barriers when they feel uncomfortable makes perfect sense.
This is the thing pedophilia should not be illegal. Pedophilia should be the canary in the coal mine that we need to train our children more stringently about consent and teach them about how to say yes and no and the consequences thereof. How to handle abuse, how to stay safe, and yes how to deal with the drama if they say yes. Ironically it’s much like designing this decentralized SAFE network: it’s about empowering the user not the authoritarian regime.
Yes in the early years children won’t be developed enough to understand. But children grow up fast and their understanding rapidly increases. Making wide generalizations about them doesn’t make sense. a 5 year old is a radically different being than a 1 year old and they’ll be quite different at 7 and then again at 10 nevermind into their teens. Not developed enough to understand a concept? Wait a year or two and see.
Also “affecting their development” is rather vague. That could be code for “they didn’t turn out cookie cutter normal”.
Also as long as people are obsessed with pedophilia they’ll be arguing for censorship and willing to give up their privacy and security for it.
Same with the terrorists. You also make generalizations and assumptions about them.
- All terrorists operate the same.
- All terrorists are fighting for no reason.
- Terrorists kill in cold blood (while the good guys don’t?)
Governments kill in cold blood and otherwise utilize violence, force and fear to maintain their power. Ex. War, conscrimption, taxes, jail for breaking the law. And then there’s the fun laws like higher jail time for killing government authorities like cops, FBI agents, judges and so forth, or just being jailed for contempt of court. Stick it in their faces and they really get pissed. Look use of violence by an established power is called “government” and use of violence used by a minor power trying to evoke change is either called “Freedom Fighting” if you’re on the side of that change or “terrorism” if you’re not. That’s it. But using violence to evoke change in behavior is the same thing governments and terrorists do. Try not paying your taxes and you’ll be quickly on the receiving end of terrorism.
(FYI Journalists report news. If you don’t want that news to be spread it would tactically make sense to kill them. Remember the game is about power. If you report something that threaten someone else’s power you put yourself in the line of fire. Same with doctors. What’s the best way to cripple a nation and make sure they don’t keep healing themselves? Kill the healers that are treating them. You wouldn’t THINK a journalist or a doctor would be considered a target but they are in fact support units. Journalists in particular are targets because they tend to carry all kinds of interesting information.)
Did you miss the note about going off topic into political debate? This is a valuable discussion about potential censorship, and I do not wish to see it moved into off topic.
Censorship is a dangerous thing, I never said otherwise. I do believe that universal morals exist, but because we can’t enforce such a thing without enabling the ability to censor other things, I understand the lack of controls and even support them. I believe in free speech, even for things I find abhorrent, and I think putting those out in the light of day will inherently hurt the causes of those currently hiding in the shadows, not help them.
As illegal content will not be censurable on the Safe Network, it might be a more valuable and productive discussion to consider how content might be sorted/filtered.
No, a decentralized internet is about protecting personal privacy, not protecting illegal activity. It’s about moving from don’t be evil to can’t be evil without facilitating evil by the users that can’t be policed. The anarcho-libertarian utopia lacks a humanitarian understanding of evil and whose proponents think the rest of the world is as mature or self-controlled as they are.
I’m not suggesting a backdoor, but I’m also not suggesting that everyone live in the woods and do away with government. Corruption is the problem. The benefits of social organization far outweigh a return to hunting and gathering…without it, we wouldn’t even have neat devices to run our fancy decentralized network on…and this requires policing because whether we want to admit it or not, people are not islands. Many people left to their own devices fall victim to their own demons.
Policing isn’t the problem. The problem is how to transition from a corrupt unjust justice system to a humanitarian one that understands that, in some sense, we truly are our brother’s keeper.
Nobody is suggesting everyone should move to the woods. To each his own, I say. But I think you have somehow misunderstood what the Safe Network is all about.
The following could be worth a look.
To prevent illegal activity, you could introduce a system on top of the Safe Network with some kind of identification to check and some ‘central’ party to do/enforce the check.
But it will be difficult to combine (100%) personal privacy and decentralisation with illegal activity prevention, I think.
Ps the North Sentinal Island still has hunter-gatherers, but probably also some kind of social organization. I’m not going to check however, because .
In that case, please don’t call the police if you or someone you care about becomes a victim of a crime involving the SAFE Network whether you use it or not. Brave new world, bring it on, but as per your view, global commons should be without police. Fair enough.
The people involved in illegal activity aren’t going to go through that second layer. I agree, I think it will be difficult, and that difficulty solves a lot of today’s problems. Yet, that is the tradeoff. There are plenty of policing techniques from before the computer that never lost their importance, and healthy communities also don’t breed as much crime, etc. Those still don’t address the issue. IF the SAFE Network takes off, it’s going to become an issue. And it could potentially become a big issue. It might not take off though. I can think of 101 reasons for both scenarios. But whether it’s to come up with future solutions by planning scenarios now or just to have basic info and a thought process to pitch to the eyes and voices that will ultimately come to this forum, it would be smart, in my opinion, to not just say “deal with it.” That doesn’t mean asking for permission, but ignoring it seems pretty lacking in vision of how this all plays out.
I saw that article about cannibal island too. Crazy. I’m a firm believer in natural developmental hierarchies of social organization. You won’t find me apologizing for or equating societies or cultures here. But what is that famous saying? “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Seems interesting. I’ll watch it
SafeNetwork is a tool, one of the most important in our next future. And each tool can be both an issue for someone and a solution for many others depending on how it is used.
Imho you can’t accuse the tool for a crime, it’s only up to humans the responsibility of their actions. Thus, it’s nonsense to “limit” or delete a tool just cause people could do malicious activities. Humans will always find a way to use in both good or bad way not just the SafeNetwork, but every single tool in this world.
Thus, the smartest things to do are imho:
Educating people on how to use the network at best and how many benefits you could get from this innovating tool (why is important for our lives). There’s no best way than miseducating users to kill innovation and progress and then use it for private own interests. How many innovating tools have been misleaded towards the public just to get then used by few?
For Police i think this will be a revolution too. Sometimes you need to make drastic changes to get serious improvements. And this is the “change” which could seriously improve the efficiency of their work. It’s up to them to discover the qualities of the SafeNetwork and turn them into strengths (I think they’re clever enough to succeed)
These are the reasons why i think that once SafeNetwork will be successfully used around the world, everything will change adapting itself to the Network. This is what i think is called evolution
Why not? Traditional policing can operate as normal, as could other security alternatives.
Activities don’t become more or less legal on safe network; it is a tool, which can be used for both good and bad.
You can make using safe network illegal. You can make not using a state mandated filter illegal. You can make using encryption illegal. You can make it a legal requirement thqt every request to the network you make is logged to the nearest state data centre. The list goes on.
Enforcement is a different matter though. Hard drugs are illegal, guns are illegal in my places, murder is illegal, theft is illegal, etc. It still happens though.
Am I mistaken, or is there came a time when I can finally agree with you on something?
We need to face reality and admit that the Safe Network will be a safe haven to all evil just as much as to all noble and good, and that it’s a problem. Defining evil as the opposite of freedom or as the lack of privacy are idealistic in the negative sense of the word.
It’s true that many who are in positions of power are against privacy because it limits their control freak egos; they are the ones who favor blanket surveillance. However, there are plenty who are shit scared because they have seen and fought darkness most of us can’t (and don’t want to) imagine, and they can see targeted surveillance as it’s been used won’t work anymore. I’m not saying they are 100% right, but I can fully understand they could care less about whining middle class privacy advocators while they are busy trying to catch a bunch of child traffickers.
Why should I not call the police just because I think people shouldn’t be forced to live in woods?
More true than you realize.
I agree, particularly when it comes to most guns. But we do limit nuclear weapons, certain chemicals, and a whole host of other things. Or is it still nonsense to limit a tool?
Education, I agree. Moreover, and this might seem irrelevant, cultivating families and communities is the #1 thing. Values and behaviors all trickle down and out from there.
I like this attitude. Inventions/Innovations that haven’t been thought of yet or only some kid in his garage is working on.
It also begs the question of: what is crime? I disagree with the prohibition of drugs, yet it is illegal. I disagree that copying data is a crime, yet copyright makes it illegal. I disagree with being monitored with it my permission, yet it is illegal not to be.
For many like me, technology like Bitcoin and SAFENetwork stand a chance of shifting the balance away from the state and large corporations and towards the individual. It carries risks, It is a double edged sword, but sometimes change is painful, but for the better.
Yes, it will be harder to stop people buying drugs. Yes, it will be harder to stop people copying data. Yes, it will be harder to monitor peoples’ every move. Life will go on, society will evolve, as will policing. Perhaps the police will even emphasise more on crimes against the individual instead.
We also must consider that criminals already have access to encrypted communication, Tor, etc. If we are concerned about them being impossible to monitor, this is already a reality.
So, my question is, if SAFENetwork becomes hard to police with existing laws, is that necessarily a bad thing or will better laws come out of it?
The thing is, the Safe Network will enable perfect privacy and secrecy. It’s not an “if” type of thing. It’s a tool that I believe will do the thing it was designed for really well, and I’m not actually against that.
What I am against is pretending freedom of expression and perfect privacy are the means to bring on peace, flowers, and happiness. The Safe Network will be an amazingly efficient tool for both good and evil, and there is little in terms of solution for fighting the latter in the context of the design goals of the network, which is a reality better faced now than later.
Again, I’m not looking for a solution. I’m asserting that there will be no solution.
Technologically, I don’t know what solution will be invented. I don’t imagine that this is the end of the line by any means, though it does seems difficult. Most things are impossible until they’re not. Cultivating integrity seems to be the most direct path. Knocking on our neighbor’s door again. Healthy supervision of children and schooling systems that aren’t re-education centers. Etc. Less AR and VR and more R.