Should content be subsidized by the SAFE Network, why or why not?
- If that is to mean Public content be subsidized by …
Then people would develop APPs that allow a person to encrypt their private data (even if using winrar) and store in the subsidized.
So then where is the subsidized. You have Public and private data at a low rate and some private data at a higher rate.
- If you mean any content be subsidized by …
Then how is this different to what we have in the current model.
Everyone will just say all their data is content and get the one low rate.
Yes this demonstrates the need for having some kind of rating or reputation system. People don’t tend to like to be surfing through public data and run into stuff they can’t open. So would tend to vote down encrypted public data or vote up unencrypted public data.
But that is too late. The time to decide is when the content is uploaded, when the subsidy occurs
If you do it after and use reputation, then is that not a rebate of the PUT price OR a payment for supplying content, instead of a subsidized price because its content.
Then the question of why should the network discriminate because a majority doesn’t like certain content. Even if its a detailed physics paper that will sole a crisis, but too technical to be read by most.
I am strongly against such a system in the core network as it would alter the autonomous nature of the network. (Along with @neo’s point)
Aren’t there like 10 threads on this already?
The network isn’t smart enough subsidize wisely. When you build a freeway you don’t pay cars to fill it up. The network is a big enough experiment without adding an additional economic layer of things to go wrong. A lot of content is published as advocacy, and getting the message out is reward enough.
It’s been covered.
Whether it’s part of the core network or not it seems the two seem to need to go together or else imbalances will occur. If data is subsidized without a reputation system, be it in the core network or an app, it’ll result in people just encrypting and just putting all their data in the subsidized category. And I think there is plenty of demand for subsidization of some kind be it built into the network or app form for obvious reasons.
I agree that there is much demand for subsidization of content. However, I believe that there is a big distinction to be made regarding at which level this gets implemented in.
Primarily, If this is implemented at the network level, the only way that users will have a choice of a reward system is if they decide to create a separate/fork the existing network. This means that the network will lose not only their existing followers and potential revenue, but the artist’s future contributions.
At an APP level, users are able to still use the network, but have a choice as to how they wish to recieve their compensation/reward.
Now, given the fact that not all content is equal (which is why a rating system is needed in the first place), would it be fair to the users and the content creators to let the network dictate how their content is to be rewarded without giving them any alternatives?
True and this also brings up the issue of: Is the SAFE network going to act as a new state or is it simply a decentralized collective? If it’s decentralized then it simply cannot take upon it the power to “decide” anything for anyone. Which is why I always found it disturbing that it “decided” to subsidize developers from the beginning since code = content. Yes I know a lot of people will argue that code is more important and that we’re all reliant on developers and apps but that’s like arguing your doctor is more important than your plumber. Sure you might think your doctor is more important if your sick but god forbid the toilet backs up and starts flooding the house with effluent. If we start arguing that x type of content creation or industry is more important than y content creation or industry we’ll get top heavy and tunnel visioned.
Point is that the moment the network starts making decisions about who gets what subsidization things start going crazy. Now what if we started from square one. You farm, you get safecoin. Then on top of that we have apps that handles different kinds of content creation. So you download your app of choice and can elect to subsidize a group or groups with a percentage of your farming rate and in return get opted into a system that benefits you. If you support devs then you are opted into a system where app devs benefit from people using their programs. If you opt into the reputation system, you not only get to use it but you can also use things like the PtP system which allows you to subsidize other content creators and be subsidized for your own works. Basically every subsidization program would have perks for the individual to go with the cons of having to pay a portion of your farming rate, much like regular socialism. Only difference is it would be all voluntary and you could opt in and out by enabling or disabling different modules or by installing or uninstalling apps.
Thing is, all of your examples start with people downloading an APP/plugin/addon etc. If you are to truly argue that this network can function without APPs, you will have to prove it. And using less examples is probably a good way to start.
Also, please do keep in mind that I’m not necessarily saying that code > content. But that code != content. It’s that simple.
Now, to get started, if there was no Public content, could one still utilize the SAFE Network?
Simple answer: Yes
Storing ones own private data for instance.
I think you are confusing Maidsafe with a decentralized network. Maidsafe is currently the only group working on a SAFE or SAFE-like project. Gladly developers will take their decisions independently from what some people on this forum say and there is no reason why they should do differently.If you disagree with the decisions they are factually taking you can simply fork your own SAFE. Your suggestion that the SAFE network (which doesn’t exist yet) would act as if it was a new state is an misinterpretation of the fact that being able to make changes to the codebase is and always will be determined based on social value/reputation.
I’m not at all saying that the network can function without apps. I’m saying code is just another creative medium just like art or literature. When a developer goes to code something they are creating something are they not? Moreover they are contributing something to the community. So how is this not same as writing a book or composing a symphony or designing a schematic? When it comes to whether the network should subsidize various groups whether code is equal to content all we’re discussing is value. You can’t have a home with the archetect to design a house, an engineer to build it and various people to build the stuff within it, not to mention people wanting to live in it in the first place. A blueprint on a piece of paper is just that. The engineer can’t build anything without the blueprint. A manufacterer or artist has no where to put any stuff and to no one to sell it if no one moves in. And if no one moves in the whole project is for naught in the first place. A house is not the same as a home. Therefore subsidizing JUST devs does not make sense. Prioritizing JUST devs and not other contributors does not make sense. For a decentralized system the vision must be just that decentralized and holistic. A group that provides contributions to the network in some form would receive rewards from the network in some way. Whether that takes the form of an app or is written into the core functionality is up for debate.
All code be it programming code or any kind of rule set is based on social values and reputation. History has shown us this. That’s the whole purpose of instituting logical rules. The values of freedom, privacy and security ARE social values. This whole project is based on social values and reputation. You don’t sit down and start writing code without a motive of some kind. There’s always a “why,” in there. There’s always social values.
I don’t think it’s up for debate really…it’s the apps. The way I see it, the highway/road is a better analogy for the Network, rather than a house. The road was crowd-funded to build and maintain it. The only thing to be paid for is road maintenance - not the Hotels, shops etc along the route (the apps). It’s up to each individual business owners how they go about attracting custom or rewarding/charging users …surely…am I wrong here? I’d even say core dev support should be phased out to donations after a time.
No, it should not.
It is open to gaming and is unnecessary. If content is valuable enough to demand payment, so be it. It is no different to consumers buying any product.
However, one of the key issues with the current net is funding content creation. This doesn’t mean it should be socialised. It just means that a frictionless way to pay for it should be found (tips, pay wall, etc, leveraging Safecoin).
That’s a good way to phrase it, and earlier I discussed the difference in value between APPs and content:
I disagree here, the dichotomies you use are not qualitative different. You could well argue that you use a certain content, same as you could argue that copying is a way of forking. I don´t see why apps should be rewarded either. Same as content, it also opens the network for gaming. Throw an app to a botnet and let them reap your Safecoins while potentially exploiting the system.
If you have a good app, you could easily have a switch that is automatically on or off and allows payment by use. Why is that not good enough?
Yet this would be negated if the cost to trigger a reward was as high or higher than the reward itself. This is why I am working on detailing out the proposal to reward APPs based on the amount of PUTs that it generates on the behalf of it’s users. (to be doled out in a lottery-type system similar to farming attempts)
As well, the reward given to the APP by the network can - if the APP devs so choose - be given to or split with the content creators who create content that the APP can utilize. The APP alone then is able to make the decision of how to dispense the reward to the content creators, and how to dispense the reward to the APP developers.
This is no different than the business model that @we_advance proposes with Network99 - sharing APP rewards with content creators that is. Now with this system, the rewards from the network are only based on that APP’s ability to contribute to the direct economic advancement of the network itself.
And as for why traditional business models aren’t good enough - they very well may be, and can indeed be implemented by any given APP. The rewards coming from the network alone will amount to less than other methods of generating revenue. In fact, I see the rewards primarily functioning as a buffer for all of the PUTting that the developers would necessarily do in order to coordinate development, provide support and maintenance, and release new versions onto the network.
The rest, the profit, can be used however they deem necessary, although I have a feeling that if content creators find an APP that can reward them (even if only in the most minuscule amount) they will use that over a similarly functioning APP that would not reward them whatsoever.
I am in agreement with the point of view that doesn’t see the network rewards to be relied upon as a way to provide a means of living to either APP developers or content creators. (actually, farmers too come to think about it) I view the reward system (however it may ultimately be implemented) as a way to promote the overall health of the network, as well as a way to encourage the growth of the experience to be had when using the SAFE Network.
Taxes pay for the roads, but businesses are given tax breaks based on their location:
If the network is the road, and the government is the one “crowd-funding” (via taxes) the building and maintenance thereof, then yes, they are (via tax breaks) paying back the companies who chose to locate themselves on those particular roads.