Sure they can’t query the network to see the spam load, it was a hypothetical. Spam loads prior to destructive bots were hitting 60% on the wider internet. Not sure the spam isn’t way back up as net isn’t working as well. Maybe the MaidSafe people will be able to query the load. But don’t kid your self about its potential to slow things down if not designed out and relegated to old fashioned brute force shot gunning supported by bots or what ever mechanism is needed. Its a major problem for the current net and a lot of people wont want their equipment used to further it.
The idea of trying to stop spam being a restriction on spammer’s freedoms idiotic. And as for restricting devs to protect end users, its in the same vein as stopping privacy mining. I am of the mind that what want developers what is almost close to irrelevant when it comes to end user needs. If end users want to oblige abusive developers they can switch off the locks on scrolling, modal ads etc. but switched off should never be the default position.
As for you comments about spam and its nature. Have you lived. I get the sense that you haven’t. Coming from the perspective of everything is fine and not on the edge of bloody revolution. Sorry but that’s a head up your ass perspective so clueless its off the scale. I am fine with that, you can keep you pro spam comments out of threads I am in or responses to my stuff.
I’d say when the person promoting free information on a message board about free information gets less “likes” than a person who works on tv commercials…
… that’s probably when their comments are becoming spam.
To be completely honest, @Warren, your ideas aren’t getting much play. Would you go to a Church and endlessly preach about evolution? Or to a Convention on evolution and endlessly preach about God?
I think, like others before you, that you are proposing ideas that fundamentally go against the whole point of Safe. Respectfully, I think people are past the point of losing patience with this. Ban “Spam” on Safe, and there is no Safe. See?
And if you reply, please don’t go into a long diatribe that completely ignores the point and makes countless new, unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps try to reply directly to each person’s logical points, and try to prove them wrong. At least. Then perhaps try to make some clear, logic or evidence-based assertions of your own that aren’t mere opinion/conjecture, or rely on some monumental mutation of terms.
@gibbons, I disagree respectfully. @russell as if it were a popularity contest about reputation.
The broken argument is that if we want the benefit of the market we have to accept shit covered cholera spreading flies landing on our faces. But ads have been obsolete since the basic search tech was produced. It’s not just that they shouldn’t be able to mine our privacy or track us or that search shouldn’t be spam powered, rather it’s that the basic search tech makes ads obsolete. The money saved can go into better products and tighter buyer-producer relationships.
@nicklambert suggested that my equating attempting to put a pay wall on bittorent with attempting to spread terror was outrageous. Thought about and still see the logic in it. The mainstream media brought us Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 and many other horrors. In being complicit in spreading wars of aggression it was also spreading torture and even literally defending it later on. If its money isn’t cut it will peddle more atrocities and is liable pitch nuclear atrocity. Bittorrent and pirate bay etc. are cutting its money and bringing us closer each day to a media reboot. To try to restore or repair the mainstream media’s profit model one is implicitly condoning its actions. Actions speak louder than words here. Arguments about trying to save a fragment (starving artists) of a broken model seem disingenuous. We need a complete reboot of the media system, and the result needs to be based on something other than commercial speech.
We have people arguing for dumbing down Project SAFE fretting that it might not support ads or might damage the ad industry. They don’t complain when Project SAFE stands to unleash suppressed technologies or make states and corporations transparent, they don’t complain when it will make war a lot harder. The complaining starts when it is suggested that Project SAFE be used to break the commercial speech megaphone. That it might be less possible to drown people out and exploit end users, seems to upset them. Project SAFE was meant to free end users, not exploit them or preserve exploitation. It seems ridiculous to think that would be a point of negotiation for compromise due to stake holder claims or some such basis i.e., buyers don’t know what things cost- suppliers shouldn’t produce it if buyers can’t or don’t value it! It seems they don’t even see the conflict of interest in sponsorship and want to paint it as inevitable or free speech when it’s the opposite.
Popular or not, I don’t want a dumbed down MaidSafe, hobbled on what may be its most disruptive potential. Advocacy for a dumbed down MaidSafe is ridiculous and sycophantic- one that isn’t going to challenge a status quo that isn’t working. Let say they get what they want, well someone is going to fork it with MaidSafe’s blessing.
@russle has suggested that MPAA/RIAA are separate from starving artists. No, I think that is a serious mistake. Commercial media is monolithic, and people like John Oliver are just loss leaders- like viperfish bulbs. It is MPAA/RIAA/CISPA/SOPA/PIPA/TPPA/FOX/Comcast/AT&T/ALEC/Goldman Sachs/BIS/FED/NSA it’s all the same piece of shit. When it comes to the American and dominant global main stream media there is no generalizing, not even the BBC is remotely adequate and it’s getting worse. We need the post media age. The blogs, the unsponsored ones, ad rejecting ones, are a start.
Again, this your opinion. There is no factuality here.
And yet people employ them to make money. Which would suggest that they are not obsolete.
Do you have access to the balance sheet of any of the companies that you are implying benefit from ‘obsolete’ advertising, and how they can survive/thrive without them? To prove your point here?
That’s not what I have been reading. I have been reading that these people want to avoid picking winners and losers at the network level. Making those judgements about who should be able to say what and where is totalitarian, paternal and rather high and mighty. At the app level, I have zero problem with this, however.
Due to the fact that Safe as it stands will be a level playing field, I don’t see a megaphone existing here. Especially if partisan parties (like you or any other app dev) can make apps that remove advertising people don’t want. Of course, people have to want those, too.
I think you are making accusations here, rather than being generous to their position. Rule #1 in a debate, be gracious to your opponent, and defeat their strongest argument. Defeating a weak argument leaves you open to further attack. And I don’t see anyone saying these things above. This is a strawman argument.
Wrong. The SAFE acronym stands for ‘Secure Access For Everyone’. Clearly, the current internet has been compromised to the extent that the ‘small fish’ are at a disadvantage. But Safe is here to level the playing field, not flip it on it’s head. In my understanding. Otherwise it would say ‘Secure Access For End-users’. No? Again, choosing sides and playing judge, jury and executioner is inherently unjust, whether you are bidding for the masses or the elite. Which is why both Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Lenin are seen as monsters. It’s also why I stand against tyranny, not ‘tyranny of the elite’. Tyranny of the masses can as bad, if not worse, judging by history.
But aren’t you the one that wants features to be put into MaidSafe? From what I’ve read here, people are advocating for the network as it stands. They aren’t arguing for it to be ‘dumbed down’. If you are requesting changes/features, then the burden of proof is on you to make your case.
Finally, a couple of thoughts. I’m sympathetic to your views on the status quo re: mainstream media. But I think it’s more due to existing (force-oriented and created) capital structures. More paternalistic ‘management’ of what people ‘should’ see or hear (in your view, of course) will not improve our lot. It’s just shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.
Also, you use the phrase ‘it seems’ a lot. This is commonly employed to present an opinion, but gives it the impression that it is a truth. In other words, you are appealing to people to look at the situation, and assuming that they will come to the very same conclusion as you have, given the same data. Needless to say, this doesn’t often happen in real life (the looking or the same conclusions). People have different histories, stakes, viewpoints, loves, worries, incomes, positions in society. So they form different opinions based on those factors and the data. If you would present your information, and clearly delineate between what you think and what you can prove, then people may be more open to listening and understanding your positions. Make your case with logic and facts (references), so that your opponents may actually argue the point. Everything else is just opinion. And opinions are based on two factors: Facts, and Beliefs. I see you present a lot of beliefs, but not very many facts.
It’s people saying, We get it. We know where you stand. We know your belief.
Rewording and reposting WHY you don’t like ads, or why we shouldn’t like ads, or why ads are bad, or evil, or worse than the Holocaust… does not matter.
It’d doesn’t matter unless you’re contributing to the HOW. How do you resolve these things? How do you create a system better than the current one?
I’m gonna go and spam this forum by repeating myself: We all agree that ads aren’t the most ideal system.
No one cares how much you hate ads. One a scale from 0 to 10 on hatred, 0 being “dislike” and 10 being “abhorrent hatred,” where ever you fall on that continuum, nobody cares about.
The only thing that matter is constructive criticism.
If you suggest a way to overcome advertising, and someone says “Well, that’s may not work because of X-Y-Z” the correct response is not “But end user time theft needs to be expunged. The murder and rape being performed on the minds of the end user is disrupting our world to a point where money is wasted on the rich where the 1% will continue to spread a war of aggression on the masses if we don’t take change now. Also, @Al_Kafir is trying to control our minds.”
The answer is to listen to people who know more than you, weigh what they’re saying, and figuring out a better way to outsmart advertising.
Would love to see one single place where this happened, linked.
No one here is arguing that. Literally nobody. We’re saying that you literally cannot stop advertising unless it’s done socially (by offering a stronger, smarter, better system). If you create a system that blocks advertising, that same system would be repurposed to block anyone.
errg. I got nothin’, except this tinfoil hat here.
@gibbons934, I feel like we’re also to blame here, though, too. Criticizing @Warren is extremely low hanging fruit. It’s too easy to point out every reason (s)he is being ridiculous. This might have to turn into the school-yard solution of ignoring him/her, which is a bummer.
You can check out @Al_Kafir post of the 4 pillars of decentralized society. Also HappyBeing seemed to be of the opinion that some of this playing field leveler would need a Project SAFE OS. Started a thread on exactly that and the expert opinion didn’t contradict HappyBeing’s assessment. OS level sound pretty low level but in Project SAFE terms still above its core.
On writing style. Noted. I am not big on the idea of “facts,” but take your points and may look for or at least request example and take your point about not assuming that stuff is obvious when it isn’t.
No, giving people tools at the system level that go beyond ad block doesn’t logically equate with giving others the tools to turn that system on them. Its like saying increasing privacy could lead to a loss of privacy. I don’t see it.
Locking advertisers and devs out of certain interface functions (maybe not a core Project SAFE function and more like an OS function) makes a lot of sense. They need no say over back, forward, scrolling or playback functions on players (even if these go beyond interfaces and browser into OS features) They should have no ability to do anything modal. They should have not control over the volume. Modal windowing in design is bad practice and annoying to end users. These things alone can defeat half the ad industries leverage. Stuff like this stops now or as technology gets more invasive culture will have people pimping their bodily functions and children given to the matter before they can make a choice.
Socially a preference for open content players with unblockable granualar fast forward ratcheting to defeat modal ads or embeded ads and common Tivo like strippers, make sesne. A social system like the early Verbase search service that is ad free (for now,) but also takes end user input on the quality of content and sites and factors in their satisfied searches makes sense, it in a sense has delisting built in. The Duck Duck Go angle is inherent to Project SAFE It also makes sense culturally, educationally, socially to restrict the notion of reputation and use it for sites and content but restrict it to determining spam or not spam. It makes sense outside of avoiding spam bots to not identify end users or have practices that only identify to the minimum extent necessary. It makes sense that sites by culture don’t keep data on people anonymity or not for very long. It makes sense to oppose any kind of DRM. It makes sense that all features are opt in, not opt out. It makes sense to use contract only as a last resort.
@russell, you don’t have a moral majority. You have some right side people who take a commerce angle on things. And show me where any one has argued for dumbing down Project SAFE… I noted a point where you were lamenting that if my spam keeps up it might be an ad free network, and I am tired of pointing it out but efforts you’re so proud of in trying to put a pay wall on Bittorent. Is that social in the right direction? The allusions to social solutions are in good faith? No, they are like fools can chase after impractical goals and meanwhile we can work on pay walls. So these things might be desirable but the can only be done at the social level with the same old flawed OSs that allow the above stuff. Just do it at the social level, don’t ask about the core unless you’re a developer with the 3 years needed to question or understand it.
The “paywall” is a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for shooting additional episodes. In front of the paywall is The Pilot which is being paid for out of pocket, behind the paywall are the episodes that haven’t been made. ITS LITERALLY THE SYSTEM YOU WANT YOU BIG DOOFUS.
The purpose of crowfunding is not allow a pretentious shill to twist the meaning of crowdfunding or undermine the equitable use of money (crowd funding) with more paywalls and friendly but subverting bs. Its about trying to turn the volume down on that.
So let me repeat for your last word benefit a mantra suggested for your personal use - one that should sign all your posts:
Being honest about being a paid shill (a human ad) doesn’t make the shill agenda honest.
Jesus is this thread still going? @Warren have you never heard of the quote “When you sacrifice freedom for security you receive neither.” I’m possibly paraphrasing but you get the point. I’d rather be on a network where I was free to post whatever and there was spam than on a network that had even the tiniest bit of censorship. Give me ignore buttons, give me content filters, but burn the censorship fanatics at the stake! Save me from statists oy va…
I really dislike how ads work on the current internet. I totally object to being tracked constantly to the point where I have given up on smartphones and on my home PC most advertising companies are blocked at the firewall, all javascript is blocked and also use other software to block ads/beacons/trackers. This does cause problems for a lot of sites that rely on tracking ads for their income, but as far as I’m concerned that is now their problem not mine. I pay a lot for my bandwidth and resent advertisers piggybacking their crap on my bandwidth AND making me pay for it AND profiting from information that I might deem private.
I wonder how much less carbon would be burned if everyone blocked ads, beacons and the rest… and I wonder just how much less traffic there would be too… just a thought.
The advertising industry goes to extraordinary lengths to invade my home - my privacy - that one can only assume given what lengths they take that the information they gain commands a high price. What I suggest is the ad industry pay for all the bandwidth it uses to whoever they’re advertising to or whoever they are trying to track.