"What if I don't want to store child porn?"

I understand your marketing pitch.

I stated that I am not concerned about it growing beyond 100K users (I think 1 million is more likely, if the platform works as it’s supposed to, and doesn’t censor).

Businesses certainly can (and should) make profit. The platform itself was set up to be a not-for-profit organization (or am I mistaken in that)?

I did not at all state my opinion on that, but I will now:

  • Regardless of their “values”, they simply cannot have illegal crap in their official directory because the government would close them. For example, they also don’t have (I didn’t really check, but I assume) a list of sites that provide lessons on tax evasion. It’s not an option, so it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks whether they should or shouldn’t.
  • I don’t see why there would be a “main” directory operated by the Foundation. I mentioned that in topics related to search.
  • The topic is about some troll complaining what if he doesn’t want to store undesirable chunks on his disk drive, not about Yahoo type of network directory

Maybe. Please open a topic about that.

The “main” directory would be the one which contains the most up to date information. Obviously one without all the “bad stuff” wouldn’t be as big as one without it. Which means you’re actually calling for the official, not the main, directory.

I saw your next comment. I am not misinterpreting your comments, I am just pointing out that you are not discussing this topic. Please open a new topic (I suggest “Does SAFE Network need the official directory?”)

If you are against censorship, ask the moderators to close this topic.

1 Like

No YOU don’t get it. What makes something viral isn’t compromising security or freedom. It isn’t even shared values. There are plenty of projects out there that no one has ever heard of that tons of people would love. And there are tons of things that get round that people HATE or that catch on because they’re shared. That’s NOT what make things go viral. What makes things go viral is that they’re TALKED about and shared. And do you know what’s shared by everyone? Subjective values. Everyone has their own values and beliefs. We don’t need to all agree. We don’t need to all believe the same thing. We don’t all need to all adopt some form of consensus. So I totally agree with @janitor on this point. I don’t give a rat’s ass if no one wants to farm because they’re offended by something being on SAFE because if they don’t have the common sense to a) Realize they aren’t the center of the universe and there are people out there that disagree with them. Or b) Come up with some kind of filtering/curation/sorting/search app then they have no business complaining. On SAFE you are literally paid to be creative and come up with apps, bug fixes, and different ways of improving things so there’s no excuse whatsoever for complaining. If you see a problem write an app. It’s that simple. If you can’t write an app and aren’t inclined to learn a programming language then contribute to an app project in some fashion. If you aren’t inclined to contribute in anyway then shut up. Put your money/skills where your mouth is. If you are one of these sensitive types for whatever reason then there’s bound to be a filter for your search engine or curation options available. And if they aren’t available then you can write them. But no I don’t think changing the project to suit the populace should be goal but rather finding the right populace to promote SAFE.

3 Likes

The directory I was talking about was a Tor hidden service directory which isn’t even on the ordinary Internet. Prior to Tor there was Freenet which worked a lot like SAFE Network (but without Safecoin) which had a directory also. Even with that level of neither of them ever became wildly popular and I would not be surprised if they never achieved a million users over all this time.

The challenge for SAFE Network, and in my opinion the primary challenge, is not technical, it’s a perception challenge, it’s marketing. It can be the greatest technology since the Internet but that doesn’t really mean people will use it, just like until the iPhone and iPad people didn’t use smart phones and tablets.

I realize the topic founder could be a troll and if that is the case then they trolled me along with everyone else in this thread.

Show me where anything I said compromises security of freedom and then make a point. I won’t read your wall of text until you point out what about curation compromises security or freedom.

I believe security vs freedom is a false dichotomy. I aim to increase both, but I don’t think curation has anything to do with that. Curation is about perception and marketing.

Being incorrectly or badly perceived actually does have costs which can effect security and freedom. SAFE Network (and Bitcoin) do have collective identities, like brand identity, and those brands do acquire reputations. Those reputations do effect the people associated with it in the community.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I don’t think most users of SAFE Network would want SAFE Network to be perceived as “evil” by the vast majority of people. If we simply take the approach of not caring what the world thinks, or what the perception is, then other people who are hostile towards SAFE Network principles will be in a position to win at marketing.

An example if you want one is the false dichotomy you always here where people say “do you want privacy or security?” or “do you want freedom or security?” when it’s really possible to improve both at the same time. No one questions that because people in high authority in government and other places seem to at times deliberately look for solutions which cost freedom when they could try to optimize for solutions which minimize costs in terms of freedom.

I know I’m very late to this discussion but I see a fairly easy solution to lukybit’s curation dilemma. SAFE is itself is a neutral system agnostic to personal belief. Curation by the SAFE network creates ethical, political, and potential legal vectors for censorship in general. Burdening the SAFE team with the very thing they have been working so hard to disable is counter productive. But, I can see Lukybit’s argument. As I have said before, the most popular apps will be those that reflect the values of the majority. So the people themselves will vote with their feet so to speak. To be especially careful though, SAFE can upon joining the network suggest to new users a set of applications that filter their content maybe even going as far as to pop up a message that informs the user if they are about to use an app that is not known to filter its content. If the user doesn’t care they can disable the message permanently with one click. A minor inconvenience and a helpful tool to save some the horror of seeing something their mind cannot immediately cope with. That and the re-aqusition of our sanity currently sequestered by our favorite lucky bit. :yum: Unfiltered apps will still just be a click or two away. So everybody wins…I hope. Now please end this before this forum explodes. :anguished:

2 Likes

So, who markets the Web today? In 1994 (when it was new), it was the service providers that offered a connection to this network. What’s being created here is a new WWW on top of the internet. There’s no need to market the Web, just the services offered that are built on that platform. The same applies to SAFE, we’re just changing the architecture.

1 Like

Care to explain how it does that? If anonymous users collaboratively filter and that curates content, who is there to sue? What legal vector?

As for ethical, if SAFE Network is perceived as evil then people will probably blame the creators anyway so I don’t see what difference it will make.

Bitcoin was different, Satoshi Nakamoto was anonymous. SAFE Network community and team are not anonymous, so because of that it’s a totally different game where perception does matter.

Curation could easily work with apps. People could easily rate apps, those apps could be listed in a decentralized directory which no one is responsible for legally, and you can have curation that way. Even the Android App store has curation.

Okay what is this “main directory”, how is it formed and who decides what’s in it? I think this is the point we’re diverging on. You seem to be proposing the creation of an authority of some kind, which in turn implies monitoring and censorship. If not then what is this main directory thing you are proposing? So far such a thing does not exist. You log into SAFE and you search for whatever you like, we all use the same basic core apps. So please elaborate what do you mean here?

The rest of what you’re talking about curation and the user being king I can totally agree with, which is in essence what my “wall of text” was about.

SAFE Network cannot be compared to the web in 1994. The Internet was popular at universities and governments prior to going mainstream. SAFE Network is popular among fringe crypto anarchists, Bitcoiners, etc. SAFE Network doesn’t have anywhere near the kind of support nor has it been around as long as the Internet.

But even if you talk about the Internet, it was never anonymous. It became curated around the same time the web came along, with domain names and directories. It’s the curation and the web wihch brought the Internet to the mainstream and the Internet existed for a while.

So if you’re someone who never used anything like SAFE Network before, you will need an introduction. You’re not going to want to check out random links to be introduced to the dark net. So how do you introduce the dark web to regular people in a way which they wouldn’t perceive it as evil?

It could be that over time people just learn to like it, but that could take decades if it happens at all. If you want it to happen faster then you will have to find some way to make it popular.

I’d like to take @Tonda 's idea and run with it a bit. Yes you could have a notification for filtered or unfiltered content but you could take it a step further and add a personality/values test at that point as well (that the user could at any time quit or skip of course) that would be stored somewhere in their personal data and would allow the network to better filter apps and content according to their preferences. (Again you could turn this filter on or off at any time.)

2 Likes

If the SAFE teams shows a willingness and capacity to filter or curate, the clever could use that to manipulate the greater public into demanding greater provisions against unwanted content. The idea I vomited out hopefully creates a balance. Reminding everyone that such content must be actively sought to be found rather than being blatantly available with no safe paths available. Kind of a more organized complimentary approach to what would otherwise be a wild west.

That mirrors something I showed to @dirvine a while back, to use a digital assistant. So I would say if you’re going to do that and if SAFE Network is capable of doing stuff like that then eventually a digital assistant can curate SAFE Network and that might be the best way.

The problem isn’t really the long term evolution of SAFE Network, it’s the short term. In the long term this sort of technology whether it be SAFE Network or something else, is going to likely replace the world wide web.

1 Like

The curation I was proposing would never be centralized around the SAFE Network developers. I was thinking more like a decentralized Reddit or something similar.

Obviously content has to be curated, and in SAFE Network where there isn’t supposed to be any central authority, moral or otherwise, it doesn’t mean content can just be scattered all over the place. So it’s cosmetic, how do you curate in a decentralized way, in a way which respects the preferences of the individual user, and of the aggregate.

You know you might need a couple of these. One for your “private” life and one for say your work life. Keeping your secretary and your digital whore separate for instance and not mixing business with pleasure as such things can become explosive.

Yeah, just be careful. The assistant should not be used to gather statistical or de-anonymizing information. You risk very intrusive behavior if you’re not careful. I’d rather not see any more people killed, imprison, or ostracized because their beliefs or interest. Lets not repeat these clusterfucks of civil stupidity for the sake of power maintenance and individual psychological comfort. :smiley:

Is SAFE Network capable of that though??? At this time I don’t know if you can technically build it. I suppose if it can be built then the best answer to help with PR would be to let people know what eventually can be built and how people could use SAFE Network in a way which is respectful of their preferences.

Right now SAFE Network is in it’s infancy, and if there is a plan for curation it’s not laid out. This means when people ask questions like the one which started this thread or even if they express something more sensible like “I don’t want to see child porn!” when someone mentions SAFE Network, there has to be some sort of talking point answer for how they can use SAFE Network without having to see it.

If I cannot guarantee that they wont see it, then I can’t answer their question or promote SAFE Network.

It’s not because it cannot be.
Try to create UncensoredTorDirectory.org and see how long before they knock on your door.
On SAFE, if it works like it’s supposed to, one would be able to have that kind of directory.

But like I said, anyone can make a directory of sites and a censored directory will never be “the main” directory.
We already established that the MaidSafe Foundation would have to censor the official directory if they were to create one.

The way I see it there could be following directories:

  • Community-owned unofficial directory (say, by the founders of this site): since they’re not anonymous, it’d have to be censored
  • Foundation-owned Official SAFE Directory - ditto
  • Unofficial uncesored directories owned by anonymous curators
  • Unofficial censored directories - maybe placement- or ads-sponsored

While some may not come in existence, the third and fourth kind cannot be banned, so they will exist.

You’ll never hear about unofficial directories (except those linked from this forum, since you read it on regular basis), so why do you assume you would get bad perception about SAFE Network because of unofficial directories that you don’t know about?

By the way, I just googled for a Web based directory of hidden Tor services. Example:

TorHiddenWiki.com | Deep Web Link List
torhiddenwiki.com/
TORLINKS Directory for .onion sites, moderated.

You can’t have an unmoderated directory on domains which can be used to ID you.

2 Likes

I have closed this topic as it has gone off OP. Please start new threads as you wish.

4 Likes

First I would like to congratulate all the great visionaries and work made by so many individuals! With the imminent release of SAFE a few concerns have clouded my thoughts. With décentralisation and anonymity comes all the unwanted and harmful aspects that come with total freedom:

-Human traficking
-Terrorist sites
-Untraceable coded communication
-Pedophile sites
-Torrent sites
-Streaming crimes etc.

With total freedom comes the heavy weight of responsibility, MAID places that responsibility on every single individual, I am sure we will see some great advances, but what can be done about the weaker links?

I can already see how SAFE will cause some serious repercussions in human trafficking and new and darker behavior with certain Individuals within the network!

Has there been any talks about how this could affect society and the safeguards to prevent such activity?