You completely missed the point. It was a rhetorical question.
“Dealing with horrific content or something”
You’re not making sense to me. The title is somebody’s attempt at the start of the discussion, to help people find topics of interest. Using it after 200 replies, to define the discussion 
We’re going of topic.
2 Likes
This is my opinion and since the client software is a essential part of the network code and any chunk is equivalent to random noise, then the logical place is where the content is content (as you said). The client code is absolutely needed for the network to work, no matter who writes it or its high level functionality. Without some client code the network is nothing, so doing it in the client is not only logical but is actually doing the work in the Safe network code (Safe Network code == Client Code + Node Code).
As far as the hacking argument goes, there WILL be different forks done to Node and Client code by others and running in the Safe network. Eg Doing Stats, running on exotic hardware, etc. These will be the responsibility of the user. Also these minor forks will be adopted by large groups because people listen to others saying this is better code but fully functional.
To say the node running is responsible for the “random noise” chunk is an artificial construct because it gives “random noise” the same level of evil as the the whole content. Where do we stop, how far down, does individual pixels constitute the same? The common sense, and obvious place is where the content is usable (eg the actual file, compressed whole file, etc.)
For Node censoring - if the content is created from other legal content by modifying the middle parts then the chunks identified and deleted will include chunks from the legal file, thus breaking legal files. Bye bye perpetual network.
Chunks by themselves cannot be used at all. Node operators cannot be held responsible for the “random noise” chunks and Maidsafe cannot be held responsible. For Maidsafe to elevate chunks to the same level as the whole content is to go beyond common sense and legal requirements. (<— in my 50 years computing, not legal, experience opinion) To attempt this based on the low level core code (nodes) is overthinking it. The authorities will be satisfied if the issue is addressed at the client code level (the content level). Remember the client level is still the Safe Network level.
In my opinion regulators are only concerned with Maidsafe dealing with the issue and if Maidsafe can show how the network deals with it at the client code then its shows they are dealing with it.
8 Likes
I was going to make this same point earlier but held off. So I’ll answer your question with more questions.
Ex: Imagine a hypothetical network where each chunk was just one byte. Encrypted or not, what can be said about the horrific content in a single byte? Is there a anything evil about the random numbers in the range of 0 to 255? If nothing were encrypted, how many contiguous bytes are required to make intelligible information that could be considered “horrific”?
6 Likes
I think that in this case it makes sense to think about additional algorithms that increase data security.
I’m wondering if the network will respond to cases of loss of all copies if this happens. Will such cases be recorded at all? For example, when corrupted files appear, the network can increase the total number of copies of other files that have not yet been corrupted.
Yes well this is the caveat of any above board foundation or corp. Which means at some point there will be competing PtP and PtD systems emerging on the SAFE Network that don’t depend on the SAFE Network foundation and it’s legal restraints. Because as you point out there are all those developers in sanctioned nations like North Korea, or perhaps a newer example might be Russia, or any illegal content that governments frown on. As long as the SNF is trying to play ball with the man it’s not politically neutral and code will be written to compete with it. That’s the short of it.
4 Likes
I have not read all the posts on this thread so hopefully my 2 cents is not a repeat. My view is this:
You either have a safe network meaning full of censorship safe from eye sores, or a safe from censorship network which equals freedom of expression without exception. There is no in between.
I opt for the latter and not the former and here’s why: Haven’t we got enough safe from eye sore networks to choose from already? Isn’t the safe project suppose to be about an alternative to that? Are we taking a stance against forced control in our lives or are we just going to be another avocation of the same ol delegation of responsibility to a government once again?
It certainly takes balls to go with the latter. Do we have that is the question? I certainly do. And I personally know many others that do as well.
I propose that the network puts the responsibility of any censorship on the user. Its an option the user gets to choose. If they dint want access to certain content, site, etc they can block it. Make it the users choice, nothing by force.
If anyone doesn’t like that there’s an eye sore on the network, they are never forced to access or look at it to begin with. Let this beautiful project stand for freedom. Its a rarity in this day and we need more then ever an example that we’re going to be just fine without bully censorship governments and tactics.
5 Likes
yes, this is apparent to a lot of us. all or nothing. Which I think is why its been so surprising and frustrating to see discussion of even the possibility of censorship on the horizon.
5 Likes
This is a false dichotomy.
That’s not to say that considering the risks, and building decentralised systems meaningfully to mitigate them is not difficult—and indeed, it may be impossible—but to not even consider the consequences, unintended or otherwise, and to blind ourselves to potential harms of such a system through choosing to only view it through the lens of this dichotomy, is not intentional system design.
8 Likes
Hi Jim thanks for the reply.
I’de be interested to know what you view as false about that.
As for the risks and consequences, I’m not quite sure where the suggestion of not considering and mitigating risks and consequences came from, but I certainly would never suggest that. Personally i’ve thought long about this stuff for most of my life so for me its easy to decide. For me is the key words in that.
In the end it will come down to a decision of did the project managers opt for another regulated platform or a unregulated, uncensored freedom based platform.
That being said, what risks are we talking about here other then eyes sores and circumventing legalities? Which in my view are 2 of the highest points about the safe network if it was a safe from censorship and regulation decentralized network.
I would be interested to know if those are the only two risk based hold ups (which as far as I can tell they are), why they are a concern, and put my input in about that. I’d also be interested in hearing any other potential risks of concern and giving my view on that as well.
My summary view: For those tired of being forced to do what others want against their will, this network potentially spells freedom if it truly is decentralized, and built without censorship and regulation.
1 Like
You say you’ve not read all the replies so you probably missed this one which might help out what’s happening notes into context:
TL;DR:
Full reply:
1 Like
Hi happybeing.
Thanks for your reply as well. Yes i’ve read maybe about 10 posts roughly. I’ll most likely read the whole thread by the end of today because of it’s value and importance.
It sounds like by that quote from your post that part of the discussion is to decide if the network will censor censorship, or are people free to self censor and censor others on the network, is that right?
From Dimitar’s original post, my 2 cents:
"Should we and why?"
No. Because we already have a million and one regulated and censored platforms to choose from. If this project is a stance against that and a stance for freedom, which correct me if I’m wrong if its not, then you build based on that stance otherwise its not built on that stance. Pretty simple logic with this.
"How can we"
Moot question if the first question’s answer is no, but to answer anyway: You cant if you want it to be decentralized, unregulated and uncensored.
"What freedom does this loss from the network"
You either have freedom or regulation. So a lot of freedom is lost.
"Would hash lists work? (IMO they are simple to break and bypass in any case)"
Once again this would be moot unless you wanted censorship and regulation.
“What is horrific and who says so”
Exactly. Subjective and bias to a person’s views, thoughts, morals etc. You’re never going to please everyone so I pose the solution to leave it to the user to decide to censor and regulate themselves, not the network. Which by default also makes it so liability and consequence of their own actions is all their own for a change. This is how nature’s fundamentals work and being in balance and in line with nature is always wise and intelligent. Trying to mitigate or circumvent nature will have the consequence you see today, loss of freedom nor any safety.
"Would Safe ever enforce censorship"
This would be unwise, counterproductive, and a complete hypocrisy to the objective if it does.
1 Like
What excited me about this project and kept me engaged these last several years is this idea: my data is my data: I decide if it stays up or is removed, and no one could force the network to remove it - and accepting that some data will be nefarious. But anything else: blacklists, whitelists, global consensus - is censorship and a betrayal of that early belief. There are a multitude of places people can go if system censorship is what they want.
The regulators - as part of a system - are not interested in serving the public good - never have been. This is about shackling disruptive decentralisation technologies that threaten establishment power - heading them off at the pass. Give an inch and they’ll take a mile, tie it around this project’s neck and strangle it.
5 Likes
Not sure if anyone else has noticed but I have seen a number of posts coming from forum members who have not posted in months/years all disagreeing with the idea of any ‘censorship’.
11 Likes
It’s an important issue, fundamental, so I’m not surprised. Many do seem to have taken this as something more than what MaidSafe have explained though - a discussion that’s needed in order to ensure the team can continue to work and deliver the fundamentals in safety. It’s a necessary process, not a change in plan.
2 Likes
It certainly sounds like change in plan. I’m not sure how you are taking that any other way. When they are talking about setting up a system of governance and potentially blacklisting items in the network, that’s a giant U-Turn from what this project has been standing on since inception.
If you think they are just talking the talk so they can get through regulations but then they will pull the rug out from underneath the governing bodies during the network launch by saying it isn’t possible, then come out and say that that’s what you believe they are doing.
From what I’m reading from the team, that doesn’t sound at all like what they are doing. They sound not only serious about implementing such a system, but seemingly saying it is necessary.
1 Like
That’s not a plan. People are reading this as a plan because they are overlooking the explanations of why that’s being discussed.
I don’t agree with that. I’ve read in several places where that’s been denied. I summarised this in terms of a process that’s needed in order to protect the team and deliver on the fundamentals which David then confirmed.
This isn’t about setting things up and pulling rugs. It’s about evaluating the landscape and deciding the best way to deliver the fundamentals. Of course it may be that the team can’t fullfil that safely, but that still doesn’t mean that the network will include censorship. It’s a matter of trust - a lot of people seem to have knee jerk distrust of David and MaidSafe which I cannot understand given their history, but there it is. That distrust also seems to lead some to disregard what’s being said and focus on their fears, and assume that’s what is being done regardless of what’s said.
MaidSafe are always brave in exposing internal discussions options and processes on big issues like this. It’s not the first time they’ve taken flack for literally involving the community rather than just working things out in private and then pushing on as most projects s do.
9 Likes
I don’t see how. One can’t be a little bit pregnant.
1 Like
this +1000
3 Likes