Things That Would Not Have Happened On Safe



The ability to unplug and shutdown an emerging AI overlord laughing over its human underlings…



Alexa, the ultimate girlfriend experience…



Added to Man in the Middle Attacks:

ISPs injecting government malware into downloads from unencrypted websites:

Fix: Encrypt all network traffic by default


Added TBLs latest comment about the ‘weaponisation of the web’ as a result of too much power in too few hands.


:+1: great article, in my opinion this points to one of the most important problems our society has to face in the next decades, and one of the main selling points of the Safe network ,thanks to its inherent decentralized structure.


Added the Great Eyeroll of China


If you get afraid of someone rolling her eyes you really do have a problem xD (and it might not only be the eye rolling :roll_eyes:)


How about we add censorship from google to this list:

The way I see it, between all the machinations of (central) banks, bureaucratic regulators and self-serving tech despots, I think conditions will be over ripe for success once the SAFEnetwork launches.


Regardless of what you think of Health Ranger or Natural News having your whole video streaming channel and several years worth of content arbitrarily deleted by a mega corporation because of political opinion is so many kinds of wrong. And this kind of thing would not happen under SAFE.


Cambridge Analytica harvested private information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission and used it for electoral targeting. On SAFE users would have to give their permission.


Nice catch, anything above millions is good for this thread :smiley:

I’m not even sure how a 3rd party would access safe users profiles, if the users don’t send it proactively .
As our profiles reside client side, they are processed locally by the app / site. The app can tailor its appearance / behaviour using the profile, but the profile stays out of reach of remote machines. This is one of the beauties of Safe, and the idea behind Solid too.
Then you can always message your profile data to someone - and probably an app can do this behind the scene if granted enough rights, but it is not a requirement like now on the regular web.


The thing with the Facebook breach is that users were paid to give access, and then company which paid them took much more than the users realised - they took their profiles and their friend’s profiles.

So this could perhaps happen on SAFE - because users gave permission - and if one user could give another access to their friends profiles. That part would depend on the app I think, so I’m not clear, but…

SAFE makes this much less likely, both technically (the app would have to be designed to allow this I think), and incentive-wise.


‘Social credit’ systems like they seem to plan in China. Not the first time I heard about plans for such a system in China: (Orwellian/Stasi-esque if you ask me).
You’ll probably be able to make such a system on top of SAFE, but that would defeat its purpose.

China to ban citizens with bad 'social credit' from some forms of travel



This could not have happened on the Safe Network


I think Telegram needs a bit of Safenetwork:


Is 57 billions big enough a fish ?

I just added this to the OP :


Facebook is the story designed to distract all of us…

This just got passed in the US.

Under the CLOUD Act, should a foreign government request data from a U.S. company, the U.S. Department of Justice would not need to be involved at any stage.

Why would the US do this? At first I thought maybe they are making a larger deal with a foreign organisation… then, it struck me. Damn… The US could run a foreign company, make a request on its own citizens, bypass department of justice.

Crazy world.

SAFEnetwork cant come fast enough.

Edit: The data access requests would also mean all of your data on Facebook to any government that makes a deal with the US, even ones that abuse human rights. This is the reason why the founder of whats app said delete facebook accounts.


Looks like them making legal what was happening anyway - i.e. US spies outsourcing their activities to the UK and elsewhere and vice versa to get around their respective laws.