I have to wonder if you’ve read the entire thread. If any of these ideas get implemented, it’ll be pointless. Come to think of it, the UK has some ridiculous laws on freedom of expression. Government control on expression is also something the project is trying to get rid of if I understand correctly.
3 Likes
That’s right, centralized control is ineffective. State control is a theater. True control is in the hands of society, but to be effective it must be at the lowest level. If the people themselves do not want to fix the problems, there is no way for the state to solve them. The SAFE Network promises to give us an effective tool for self-organization at the lowest level.
2 Likes
could be some problems with this. The PUT cost for new content would likely be higher then it should be if people were allowed to discriminate that they only want old vetted data for example. Also then the onus is now kinda on the farmer to do some vetting or they might be held accountable for willfully harboring illegal content. I don’t think there is a way to let people pick and choose what they store without dramatically changing the fundamentals of this idea.
I do agree we don’t want to be silk road or 4chan 2.0 though. We want to keep @dimitar’s argument valid that these are just roads and everyone uses them. If the vast majority of road users had some criminal agenda people would start to get really critical of this concept of having roads, and good people would want to stay away from this thing full of criminals.
IMO the only way to approach this is from the other side. We can’t really get rid of the criminals, but we could try to make it so the overwhelming majority of users had legit use cases. We should promote lots of traffic that makes people say “ok this is a useful tool and not made specifically for criminals.” As long as the brand image isn’t being a tool for criminals (and thus constantly attracting more criminals) I think we have succeeded as much as we can. Is it perfect? No not at all. Lets shoot for something realistic where most people that use SAFE are good people though.
3 Likes
Tell me more about these criminals and legal jurisdiction of said crimes… I thought this was meant to be a global network not about the morality police of some micronation…
.
You used the term “blacklist”. Today that could get you cancelled as a racist. The problem is that what is “hate speech” is entirely subjective, and those who set themselves up as the moral arbiters of the rest of us are constantly changing the rules about what is “acceptable” speech. I think everyone needs to have more respect for the opinions of others and stop calling them “bad people” just because one doesn’t like what they say. Remember, it’s all just words, and words can only harm a person if they let them.
3 Likes
Anybody’s personal opinion on morality or respect for the opinions of others isn’t important if it doesn’t impact the network’s functionality.
Nowhere in this thread have I used that term. Did you reply to me by mistake?
1 Like
Sorry I thought i was responding to andypants the one who opened the topic. I am new to SAFE forum and this was my first post. I will be more careful with my clicks in the future.
7 Likes
One possible solution to these problems is to have customized user settings. They could be called “SAFE” levels. If you have a SAFE level set to 10, you will only see search results that have not been flagged or maybe only a few times. If it is set to 1, then you see everything, but you might be offended. The more customized the user environment, the better.
3 Likes
Those levels tempt opinion but yes along those lines… you could subscribe to certain opinions and the overlap of those who be some consensus that would notionally match your interest.
One example is opinion on what are viruses and malware… would want to avoid such files as those and any websites that linked to them.
3 Likes
What if you have apps running on Safe are censoring info but the Data belongs to the user?. So even if they censor the info you always own your data and can move or use a different app.
1 Like
If you upload a picture on from your drive to a website and it gets deleted, you still have that picture on your drive. I think there may be a difference between uploading data to SAFE and uploading it to a SAFE app, but I’m not sure.
1 Like
The roads analogy is a good one. But the way roads are kept same is by policing them. There are also a lot of people here confusing morality with criminality. I take the Peter Tatchel line of free speach. If you aren’t treatening to kill people, encoraging others to kill people or down right lying then you can say what you like. But that still means there are some limits. There are some modern issues with criminality that we may not agree with (drugs and porn perhaps) but there will be limits (a site selling trafficed children say). I accept that there may be a cost but if we dsign/build good practice in at the start then it will be reduced.
1 Like
Gotta say, my views and opinions on freedom of speech and freedom in general somewhat changed in the past few years, as – it could be only me – it seems fake news madness and blatant manipulation have accelerated lately, and it’s become nigh impossible to separate relevant information from the chaff due to the infinite number of often contradictory yet seemingly reasonable sources which are – to make it even funnier – presented to you in the order Google decides is preferable.
Web is mad these days. Corporate, political, and commercial. On a daily basis, I’m confronted with crazy loads of human stupidity, and it’s making the maintenance of my liberal stances extremely challenging. The prevalence of extreme views and the web-dialogue-driven polarization of opinions make it nearly impossible for me to identify with any politics whatsoever.
So right now, I pray for the SAFE Network to remain relatively obscure and immune to a mass invasion for as long as forever if possible, lol. And if media manipulation or the bad-guys-use-it-so-stay-away narrative help it, fine with me. I know I’m selfish, but I gotta be on this.
1 Like
You being ironic?..
Which part?
This is why I don’t use Google or Facebook to direct me to information. Twitter still works very well, but you have to make sure the setting is ‘Latest Tweets First’ or you get their ‘curated’ feed. Then you have to take time to build up a decent set of sources to follow.
I have two accounts, one for technical stuff which I try to keep apolitcal and another where I follow more journalists, lawyers, sector experts, politicians, scientists etc, and where I say wtf I like. The latter has become a training ground for me in how to engage online, what to take from others who to respond to, who to block.
This works very well for me. I care about followers on the first account because it is where I want to share about SAFE and Solid. I don’t care on the more political account. But if you do, there are techniques to be learned in how to engage to attract comment, get exposure and get followers.
Overall it is a thousand times better than Facebook for open, wide ranging topics, or for specialist subjects and finding experts who write with integrity, or sourcing accurate information at speed. There’s almost never a story I don’t hear first on Twitter, or don’t know more about than I ever hear in the TV news subsequently, and I get links to articles that I’m very interested in, but I don’t find when I browser the news sites myself.
5 Likes
I apologise for not reading all posts, this topic has been discussed alot though.
I understand the concerns but if you want freedom of speech that comes with strings attached, such as having content not everyone will agree is appropriate.
Project decorum could work well here.
It has clikes for liking certain accounts, those accounts could host links for sites considered acceptable by that group.
I am sure many things will emerge that work well here.
7 Likes